Safety Code 6 = Enabling Depopulation With Complete Lies To the Public | Safety Code 6 Destroyed

Dylan Eleven | Truth11.com

When in Canadian legal battles over cell phone radiation, smart meter radiation, cell tower radiation, the focus of the defence of the evil corporations and corrupt government lies in Safety Code 6.

The farce of Safety code 6 is why many cannot win battles legally and how the  entire cell network and smart meter network is allowed to daily polute our lives and kill us.

This is part of the depopulation agenda and is our first area we need to attack. Safety code 6 goes and the whole industry falls.

Many have proven safety code 6 to be completely useless.  A false study that only focus on heat exchange with a  dummy filled with water.   Thermal effects are noticed and agreed upon in safety code 6.  That is it.  There is no look into any non thermal effects at all.  So to blindly state its ok to kill us based upon the thermal effects only is not a valid argument.  Yet courts, power companies and cell companies are stating this as their justification for hurting us all.

Safety Code 6 has been revisited recently by the Royal Society and of course the findings are that it is still valid.   The royal society, the royals, government, etc. are all implementing depopulation plans.  Of course they say it is ok.

Publicly we need state to the masses that safety code 6 is bullshit and we need to look at these dangers properly.  There are many well documented studies explaining the link between wifi, cell phones, smart meters, cell towers and health issues.

Stating that cancer rates and the following symptoms of RF pollution are not valid due to a study on temperature only is criminal.

Safety Code 6 Enables The Depopulation Agenda. Resist, revolt, educate, and protect yourself with EMF shielding.  Shields Up! #safetycode6, #safetycode6farce, #depopulationagenda

 

Symptoms Of Wireless Pollution:

➡ Neurological

headaches
depression
difficulty concentrating
anxiety
muscle and joint pain
confusion and spatial disorientation
memory loss
fatigue
dizziness
weakness
nausea
tremors
irritability
muscle spasms
numbness
leg/foot pain
tingling
“Flu-like” symptoms
hyperactivity
fever
altered reflexes
insomnia
➡ Cardiac

palpitations
pain or pressure in the chest
low or high blood pressure
shortness of breath
arrhythmias
slow or fast heart rate
➡ Respiratory

sinusitis
asthma
bronchitis
pneumonia
➡ Dermatological

skin rash
facial flushing
itching
burning
swelling of face and neck
➡ Ophthalmologic

deteriorating vision
pain or burning in the eyes
pressure in/behind the eyes
floaters
cataracts
➡ OTHER

digestive problems
abdominal pain
testicular/ovarian pain/swelling
enlarged thyroid
great thirst
dehydration
nosebleeds
internal bleeding
hair loss
pain in the teeth
deteriorating fillings
Light sensitivity
swollen lymph nodes
loss of appetite
hypoxia
allergies
frequent urination and incontinence
night sweats
immune abnormalities
redistribution of metals within the body
ringing in the ears (tinnitus or similar chronic ear-noise)
impaired sense of s mell
altered sugar metabolism
dryness of lips, tongue, mouth, eyes
➡ Severe reactions

Can include seizures, paralysis, psychosis, and stroke

 

___________

C4ST.org

C4ST Response to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster

On Feb 20th, 2014 Health Canada quietly released a document entitled “Busting Myths on Safety Code 6”. This attempt to instill public confidence in safety exposure levels to wireless radiation is using false and unsubstantiated claims. This was again repeated on the newly released 60 day public consultation web page posted May 16th, 2014.

Gone are the days where the public will accept you are safe just because Health Canada says you are….Canadians and scientists want and deserve proof with an open and transparent review inclusive of the current evidence showing biological harm from wireless radiation.

C4ST and experts from around the world have come together to provide the real facts around the specific points Health Canada addresses in their Myth Buster document. Here it is:

1.

Health Canada ‘Fact’
Even a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.

C4ST Correction
C4ST has found NO studies on children showing that radiofrequency/microwave radiation is safe and NO studies which show that continuous exposure is safe – such as from cell phones, cell towers and antennae, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, etc.

Brain Cancer: Children are not little adults. Children’s skulls are thinner and certain tissues of a child’s head, including the bone marrow and the eye, absorb significantly more energy than those in an adult head. A peer reviewed study by Gandhi et. al published in 2012, showed that radiation from a cell phone penetrated 10% of an adult head; 70% of the skull of a five year old.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884

DNA damage: Children are growing relatively rapidly (DNA is replicating faster). Single and double strand DNA breakage could impact a child’s development in many ways. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Phillips+Singh+lai+DNA

Behavioural difficulties: A well designed peer-reviewed study found that children whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were more likely to have emotional problems and be hyperactive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18467962

This finding was supported by animal studies at Yale University which showed ADHD-like behaviour in the young of exposed, pregnant mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Aldad+2012

Ability to learn and remember: Dr. Martha Herbert of Harvard School of Medicine wrote: “Wi-Fi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318
http://www.c4st.org/news/item/scientific-research/harvard-doctor-warns-about-wi-fi-in-schools.html

___________

2.

Health Canada Statement
A number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.

C4ST Correction

There is scientific evidence to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields can cause physical symptoms

The authors conclude that they demonstrated the neurological syndrome “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” in the examined subject. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=19460&l=e

Based on the Heart Rate Variability analyses of the 69 subjects, 7% were classified as being “moderately to very” sensitive, 29% were “little to moderately” sensitive, 30% were “not too little” sensitive and 6% were “unknown”. These results are not psychosomatic and are not due to electromagnetic interference. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

A scientific panel of International experts meeting in Seletun, Norway published a paper that recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443

This paper provides recommendations to assist health professionals in caring for individuals complaining of EHS. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153604

Canada:

The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability. This includes extraordinary sensitivities to electromagnetic phenomena at levels of exposure commonly tolerated.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities 

Its Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities states “approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities and many more are somewhat sensitive to traces of chemicals and/or electromagnetic phenomena in the environment.”
http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/envsensitivity_en_1.pdf

The following physicians treat patients with electrosensitivity:

Dr. Riina Bray MD, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital.
http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/news-and-events/connect/the-effects-of-invisible-waves

The National Post: “Dr. Bray’s clinic may be the only mainstream medical facility in Canada that routinely treats patients for a condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/11/sick-of-wi-fi-the-debate-over-its-safety-is-not-going-away/

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care committed to providing nearly half a million dollars to kick start a program for family medicine graduates to complete an extra year of focused training in environmental health by collaborating with physicians at the Women’s College Hospital clinic.
http://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2014/04/building-expertise-in-environmental-health.html

Other countries support electrohypersensitivity:

Sweden: Electrosensitivity is an officially recognized impairment. Some hospitals have built special rooms with very low wireless radiation so that people who are sensitive can get medical care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178584

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368370601044150?journalCode=ebm

The Austrian Medical Association has adopted guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of illness caused by wireless radiation. Austria’s checkpoint for physicians lists 24 symptoms ranging from anxiety and depression to blood pressure problems and heart palpitations.
http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/media/EMF%20Guideline%20OAK-AG%20%202012%2003%2003.pdf

 

___________

3.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Frequent users of cell phones, such as children and teenagers, are at an increased risk of adverse health effects caused by exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada “Fact”
There is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk when Safety Code 6 exposure limits are respected.

C4ST Correction

There is very concerning evidence that children and teenagers are at an increased risk at exposure levels well below Safety Code 6. Manufacturers put warnings, some especially for children, in their manual that comes with their devices.

Brain cancer:
Dr. Lennart Hardell and his research team at Orebro University in Sweden showed that children who start using a mobile phone in early years have an increased risk for developing a glioma (a very aggressive form of brain cancer) by the time they are in their 20’s.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939605

Cell phone manufacturers’ cautionary statements:
Every major manufacturer of cell phones in the world issues warnings to keep their devices away from direct contact with the body.
http://www.c4st.org/news/major-device-safety-warnings.html

Blackberry: warns to keep their phones an inch away from any part of your body whenever turned on “including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers.”
http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/Blackberry-Manual-RF-Warning.pdf

Apple: warns “to keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holsters that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) separation between iPhone and the body.”

Schools:
The letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) to the director of the Peel District school board (Ontario) strongly advised the Board to turn off the Wi-Fi and hardwire computers to avoid “a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address.”
http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/cell-tower-situations/Peel-DSB/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine_Letter_to_PDSB.pdf

Belgium:
As of March 1, 2014, in Belgium, it is illegal to sell or market “kiddie-phones”, mobile phones that are specially designed for children.
http://newsvoice.se/2013/10/18/belgium-bans-mobile-phones-for-children/

United States:
A letter from the President of the American Academy of Paediatrics (comprising 60,000 health professionals) to the Acting Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states: “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation…. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures”.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

 

 

___________

4.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Many countries have limits 100 times lower than Safety Code 6. This must mean Safety Code 6 doesn’t protect my health.

Health Canada ‘Fact’
Canada’s limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

C4ST Correction

China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits 100 times safer than Canada. http://buildingbiology.ca/media/pdf/rf_exposure_limits_cell_antennas.pdf

40% of the world’s population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada.

France:
In October, 2013, the French National Safety Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health, ANSES, “recommends limiting the population’s exposure to radiofrequencies – in particular from mobile phones – especially for children and intensive users.”
http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/PRES2013CPA18EN_0.pdf

India:
In Sept., 2013 the City of Mumbai, India adopted a policy prohibiting cell towers on schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages and juvenile correction homes; prohibiting nearby antennas from being directed toward such buildings; and requiring that antennas on such buildings be removed.
http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Public%20Relation%20Officer/Press%20Release/Public%20Notice%20for%20Chief%20Engineer%20Development%20Plan%20Department%20eng.pdf 

Russia:
In June, 2012 the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection officially recommended that Wi-Fi not be used in schools. http://youtu.be/5CemiJ-yIA4

 

___________

5.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Health Canada ignores certain studies, especially those that show adverse health effects resulting from exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach.

C4ST Correction

Health Canada ignores hundreds of studies showing adverse effects and has not divulged how it has done its evaluation.

“’The Weight of evidence’” (WOE) concept and its associated methods should be fully described when used” states Douglas L.Weed, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, in a peer-reviewed paper. Health Canada has never made public its definition of “weight-of-evidence”, how it decides which data is used in their assessment and how it is evaluated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506981

Nor has Health Canada ever published its criteria, methodology or followed the international best practices associated with a proper evaluation of the scientific evidence for Safety Code 6. When the “extensive Rationale” that Health Canada provided to the Royal Society Panel to support its 2013 version of Safety code 6 was finally obtained, it contained 65 references (29 from the years 2007 to 2013). In comparison, the BioInitiative 2012 report had over 1800 new references from its 2007 report and in a recent update said there were over 6,000 studies demonstrating biological effects. http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/

As stated in the HuffPost Living Canada article, by Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, “Still more problematic, was the panel’s narrow scope which focused on established medical risks from radiofrequency waves rather than emerging research.” The “panel” referenced in Dr. Miller’s quote was using the criteria for evaluating the science set out by Health Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/14/wireless-devices-cancer-risk_n_5148740.html

___________

6.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Safety Code 6 is based only on preventing thermal (heating) effects and doesn’t consider other harmful non-thermal/biological effects.

Health Canada Fact
Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and consider many different potential health effects including thermal, non-thermal and biological effects.

C4ST Correction

C4ST has identified over 300 peer-reviewed, studies published since 2009 that have not been considered by Health Canada’s recent analysis of Safety Code 6 that show harm from wireless radiation at levels significantly below Safety Code 6.

http://www.c4st.org/break-silence
“Roughly, 1800 new studies have been published in the last five years reporting effects at exposure levels ten to hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowed under safety limits in most countries of the world.” So state the editors of The BioInitiative 2012 Report which has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MScs, MAs or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/seci_2012_Preface.pdf

In a National Post article, April 15, 2014, Dr. Martin Blank, special lecturer in physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, stated “If you’re making a scientific decision, a scientific decision must bring in all relevant data. They did not. They ignored the data. They deliberately put it off the table.” Dr. Blank is referring to the recent Royal Society panel hired by Health Canada that followed Health Canada’s guidelines on evaluating the scientific evidence. Dr. Blank also stated “The panel has not considered important developments in cell biology.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/15/canadian-scientists-urge-more-research-into-safety-of-wireless-technology-saying-recent-report-downgrades-cancer-risk/

Safety Code 6 is based on the premise that non-ionizing radiation cannot harm humans. (Albert Einstein defined non-ionizing radiation as not being strong enough to knock an electron out of its orbit around an atom.) Albert Einstein passed away in 1955, the same year Steve Jobs was born. With all the advancements in technology and science, it is not appropriate to rely solely upon this theory.

___________

7.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
I live and work in a major city, so I am constantly exposed to RF energy, all the time. Safety Code 6 does not account for the cumulative effects of this exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
Canadians are protected from the cumulative effects of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.

C4ST Correction

Safety Code 6 cannot take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy. There is no government agency, federal, provincial or municipal that has the mandate, ability or resources to measure the cumulative effects of wireless radiation from multiple sources: at home, work or school with Wi-Fi, cell phones, portable phones, near a cell tower with smart meters on the exterior building. C4ST volunteers have made several requests to Industry Canada to measure specific areas and were told IC does not have the resources to do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTGINfeRkcg&feature=player_embedded

 

___________

8.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Safety Code 6 does not protect my health, as it’s based on an exposure time of only six minutes. Given our constant exposure to RF energy, especially in urban environments, this is not enough.

Health Canada Fact
Canadians are protected from continuous exposure to multiple sources of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.

Health Canada Explanation
The limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. This means that if someone, including a child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, that person would experience no adverse health effects.

The six minute time-averaging period specified in Safety Code 6 is used as a reference period against which to make a comparison between the measured RF energy levels and the limits in Safety Code 6.

This reference period is not a maximum exposure time. It means that the levels of RF energy from all sources combined shall not exceed the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 in any six-minute time period throughout the day.

C4ST Correction

Safety code 6 was first published in 1979. It has not had any major changes since then. In 1979 there were no cell phones (hence no towers), wifi was in a handful of places at work, smart meters did not exist and portable phones were a rare luxury. The limits set for manufacturers use a computer model based on a 220 lb. mannequin.

___________

9.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency energy as potentially carcinogenic. This means that I will get cancer due to my exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
The IARC did not find a direct link between RF energy exposure and cancer.

Health Canada Explanation
In 2011, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans.

Health Canada is in agreement with the World Health Organization and IARC that additional research in this area is warranted.

On October 4th 2011, Health Canada updated its advice to cell phone users on practical ways of reducing exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy from these devices. This advice pertains only to cell phone use, and not to RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi devices, since the intensity and distribution of the RF energy absorbed within the body from these devices are very different.

C4ST Correction

The classification to 2B, possible carcinogen is meant to prompt health agencies around the world to start to take precautionary steps to protect our health. Since the 2011 designation, peer-reviewed papers have been written to move wireless to the next harmful level, 2A, probably carcinogenic. Health Canada is failing Canadians by not taking any action to raise awareness or strengthen guidelines to reduce exposure to this possible carcinogen.

___________

10.

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Because Health Canada regularly reviews Safety Code 6, it must mean the current Code doesn’t offer me enough protection.

Health Canada Fact
The exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 protect the health of Canadians.

Health Canada Explanation
To ensure that it continues to provide protection against all known adverse human health effects of RF fields, Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis. Currently a draft of a revised Safety Code 6 is undergoing review by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC). The RSC hosted a public consultation on Safety Code 6 in October, 2013. 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.

C4ST Correction

Over 100 Canadians were not able to present at the public consultation on Oct. 28, 2013. We are encouraged by Health Canada’s commitment to consult further before finalizing Safety Code 6. Along with the rest of Canada, we hope that this process will be open and transparent and follow international best practices of evaluating the scientific evidence.

There are many examples of other exposure guidelines that were eventually found not to be protective (eg. tobacco, asbestos, lead, radon, thalidomide, DDT, urea formaldehyde insulation, breast implants) that have been significantly revised downward.

 

___________

C4ST.org

Error Makes Safety Code Illegal and Dangerous

The Standing Committee on Health is a government body appointed under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The mandate of this organization is to “study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, and operation of Health Canada.” A professional International Consulting Group (Thermografix Consulting Corporation) working for engineers, medicine, medical education, municipalities, industry and insurers for 32 years, was asked to report to the Standing Committee on Health regarding an error in Safety Code 6.

A serious error in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 was been reported to the Standing Committee of Health in which Health Canada failed to include multiple sources of RF energy or to include human beings as conductors with their own bio electromagnetics. This error, or omission, means that the application of law has changed and that Safety Code 6 is unable to accomplish its objective to protect the public and is completely illegal. Health Canada failed to include the electrical currents naturally occurring in the human body, nor factor in multiple sources of EMFR as seen previously in the SAM method, in their calculations of Safety Code 6. Because of the oversight in missing the frequency-to-frequency conflict in here, Safety Code 6 actually validates why Wi-Fi should not be in schools: it’s causing the unintentional stimulation of tissue and the heat effect, which they call nerve and muscle depolarization.

The problem with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is that they based the Safety Code on measuring heat absorbed from a cell phone into a mannequin and did not consider human biological systems, or the interactions between routers and laptops, hot spots from metal objects or appliances inside children (such as braces, retainers or surgical pins). Nor did they consider the building structure such as closed classrooms with brick walls and no windows where the frequencies are stronger to pass through buildings.

Health Canada Fails To Investigate and Report to Provinces

The Standing Committee of Health recommended that Health Canada investigate the error in Safety Code 6 and to report to the provinces but they have failed to do so leaving the provinces, municipalities, school boards, and parents to believe that the frequencies and safe and legal. Health Canada’s response to the letter about this issue demonstrate that they there are providing inaccurate information to various organizations and are failing to act on urgent concerns that is putting students, staff and the public in danger.

The Committee asked for expert witness to testify on behalf of the Electrical Industry regarding an error in Safety Code 6. This is a professional International Consulting Group (Thermografix Consulting Corporation) working for engineers, medicine, medical education, municipalities, industry and insurers to provide them with the science within law related to their objectives.

In his testimony in the US courts regarding a WiFi injunction, M. Bennett warns “Every minute of RF exposure to teachers or their students is a minute too long. In my opinion as a professional with Canadian national and pro AHM, students, school staff and faculty experience adverse health effects and should be

discontinued immediately as this as a national and global emergency.” Their Chief Science Officer, Mr. Bennett’s extensive credentials can be viewed along with the testimony that he provided for a current court case in Portland against the use of WiFi in schools.

To ignore multiple sources of radiation emitting devices and failing to include humans in these calculations was a tragic oversight, but to ignore this error and fail to adjust for the additional frequencies now that the error has been identified is simply gross negligence.

Other Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health

Were you aware that one of the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Health was to reconsider the EMFR limits currently allowed in Canada by examining the policies in other countries? The recommendation read as follows:

Health Canada request that the Council of Canadian Academies or another appropriate independent institution conduct an assessment of the Canadian and international scientific literature regarding the potential health impacts of short and long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include an examination of electromagnetic sensitivity and a comparison of public policies in other countries governing exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and report on its findings.

The Standing Committee on Health suggested the government should call for an independent group beyond Health Canada to take stock of the scientific literature available on the technology, likely because of alleged conflicts of interest with the telecommunications companies and the overwhelming amount of evidence from independent studies that show cause for alarm. Health Canada was asked to examine the policies in other countries for allowable exposure limits, to develop an awareness program about EMFR and to initiate a plan to report adverse reaction reports.

In their report, “An Examination of the Potential Health Impacts of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation,” the Standing Committee asked Health Canada to appoint an independent group to review all of the research which relates to the effects of electromagnetic frequency radiation, create a risk awareness program of these effects, and to ensure that a system was in place to report such adverse effects. The recommendation contained in this report read as follows: (p.11-12)

Recommendation #2:

Health Canada request that the Council of Canadian Academies or another appropriate independent institution conduct an assessment of the Canadian and international scientific literature regarding the potential health impacts of short and long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include an examination of electromagnetic sensitivity and a comparison of public policies in other countries governing exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation; and report on its findings.

Recommendation #3:

Health Canada and Industry Canada develop a comprehensive risk awareness program for exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include Health Canada making public in an accessible and transparent way all the studies and analyses undertaken by the Department on the impact of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on human health, as well as the provision of information promoting the safe use of wireless technologies.

Recommendation # 4:

Health Canada ensure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.

Committee Report Warns Canadians Safety Only Theoretical

The report stated that “It would also be appropriate to let Canadians know that the safety of this technology is not guaranteed, but only theoretical at this point, particularly in the case of children.” As well, they went on to urge “If the ‘unaccepted’ science is in fact correct, Canada will face larger health care costs for the treatment of biological effects including cancer and fertility problems. With this in mind, children should not be forced to be exposed to this technology in their school until it is actually proven safe, not just theoretically acceptable.

http://www.c4st.org http://www.facebook.com/c4st.org

 

___________

SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS CALL HEALTH CANADA TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EXPOSURE

Dr Magda Havas

July 12, 2014.  On July 9th, C4ST (Canadians for Safe Technology) held a news conference in Ottawa asking for Health Canada to provide adequate Safety Code 6 guidelines to protect the public against radiofrequency radiation exposure.  C4ST is not alone.Screen Shot 2014-07-13 at 8.40.21 PM

This past week two declarations, one from Physicians (22 Canadian doctors) and one from Research Scientists (53 international scientists)  were presented to Health Canada.  These two declarations are provided below and have also been added to the July 11, 2011 post of international appeals/resolutions/declarations calling for similar protection.

It is unconscionable that the primary health authority in Canada, Health Canada, has failed to provide protection against radiofrequency radiation as levels continue to increase in homes, schools, hospitals, offices, airports and airplanes, city streets, and residential neighbourhoods.

People are becoming ill and so far the medical profession in Canada, apart from a few enlightened individuals, is largely ignorant of the health risks of continuous exposure to wireless technology.  As long as levels fall below Safety Code 6 (SC6), an obsolete guideline based on a heating of tissue,  we are told this technology is safe.  Since levels seldom exceed SC6 the public, school officials, parents, teachers, doctors and nurses are under the false impression that they are all safe.  Even when levels exceed SC6, Health Canada officials tell us there is nothing to worry about!   Yet a growing number of people are becoming ill once a smart meter is attached to their home or Wi-Fi routers are installed in schools.

How much suffering are individuals expected to endure before Health Canada will admit that their guideline is inadequate and that levels need to behundreds of times lower to protect the public and thousands of times lower to protect those who have already become sensitive to this radiation?

When will Health Canada recommend there be white zones in public places (areas without radiation) similar to “smoke-free” environments?

Why is it not OK for children under the age of 18 to use cell phones but OK for these same children to be exposed to Wi-Fi microwave radiation all day in school?

Who is Health Canada protecting as they are definitely not protecting the health of Canadians!

Scientists and physicians tend to be conservative in their desire to become involved in political issues.  They seldom speak out and would prefer to provide information behind the scene and only when asked to do so.  This private communication with Health Canada has been fruitless and now a growing number of them are willing to make their concerns public.  Hence these two declarations.

Since 1997 more than 22 appeals, resolutions and declarations have been signed by scientists and medical doctors . . . but governments are not listening. The few exceptions where stricter guidelines are used include Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland and several other European countries.  While Canada is rushing to install powerful Wi-Fi routers in schools, countries like France are converting to fibre optics and banning Wi-Fi in the classroom!

Let’s hope that these  two declarations will provide a turning point in Canada. We need to educate doctors on how to diagnose electrohypersensitivity and how to help their patients recover.

We also need better guidelines and warnings from Health Canada to protect the health of all Canadians and especially children so that we can divert the health tsunami that is just around the corner.

Health Canada . . . time to come clean and live up to your responsibility to protect the Health of Canadians.

 

___________

Dylan Eleven, Truth11.com, Truth11 Films

Truth11 Films | The Cost WiFi and Cellular Technology | Freedom, Humanity, Sanity, Health and Life

Technology has shaped our lives to be quick fast and full of sparkling entertainment and information. Most people would love a chip in the head so they can get the latest weather report without opening their eyes in the morning. Most are completely addicted to techno crack junk food for the soul that fulfills our desires with the latest, the greatest, the smallest the biggest, the thinest, the fastest, the shiniest, and the deadliest.

3g, 4g, and now 5G so powerful you can download a movie in a second. But at what cost. This addiction is killing you from all around you, from in your pocket as your apps track you, from every cell tower and every microwave station that envelops your city. The toxic soup is real and dangerous even though you can’t see it. We all need to get away from it.

Truth11 Films latest release discusses EHS ElectroHyper-Sensitivity and the growing issue of wireless pollution. Something that affects us all and poses a serious threat to our health and sanity. The film also looks at the role wireless technology plays in our privacy and freedom.

 

___________

DR Magda Havas

RESEARCH ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION IN EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES, 1976.

February 24, 2011.  The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States released a document referenced below that had a security classification as “confidential” and has since been “unclassified”.  This document may help us better understand why the U.S. military is interested in opposing a more protective guideline for microwave radiation.

Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams.  1976.  Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) – Eurasian Communist Countries (U). Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and was released by the Defense Intelligence Agency.  34 pp.  Unclassified.

Abstract:   This study was undertaken to provide a review and evaluation of the current Eurasian Communist country state-of-the-art in the area of the effects of radiowaves and microwaves. It generally covers the 1968-1975 period. The major topics include discussions of the effects on humans and animals. The study provides information on the genera1 trends of research with special attention to possible military applications. Where appropriate, information on safety standards and research personalities and facilities is provided.

The section dealing with biological significance of radiowaves and microwaves include the following topics for which there is considerable research:  blood, cardiovascular system, cells, central nervous system, digestive system, glands, metabolism, reproduction, visual systems, internal sound perception as well as miscellaneous effects.

There are two disturbing paragraphs in this document that clearly indicate the U.S. military’s perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.

“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function. The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications.” [page vii]

“Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers. Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards.” [page 24]

Note that the “less stringent safety regulations” refers to U.S., Canada, Great Britain and several European countries as well as to the guidelines recommended by ICNIRP and WHO. It seems that the authors of this document value military and commercial financial considerations above worker health. There is little doubt that the U.S. military played a key role preventing safer and more protective U.S. guidelines for microwave radiation.

Microwave weapons are outside the scope of this document, although there is reference to antipersonnel applications of microwave technology including inducing neurological effects, metabolic diseases, heart seizures and neurological pathologies resulting from breaching the blood-brain barrier, as well as intracranial production of sounds and possibly words at very low average power densities.  On page 26, a section dealing with microwave weapons seems to have been removed.

This document clearly reflects the U.S. military’s resistance to lowering the guideline and their distrust of research conducted in the Eastern Block Countries.  That distrust and the power wielded by the U.S. military is largely responsible for the status of the  current guidelines, which fail to protect public and worker health.

Click here to down load this document as a pdf (1.8 MB).

 

___________

DR Magda Havas

MICROWAVE RADIATION AFFECTS THE HEART

March 7, 2011.  During the past year I have become increasingly interested in the effects of microwave radiation on the heart.  This interest is based on a number of observations.

Some people who are electrically sensitive complain that they have a rapid or irregular heart beat and feel chest pressure or pain (Eltiti, 2007).  We conducted a “proof of concept” study to determine if we could measure heart rate changes caused by microwave radiation with real-time monitoring.  We found that some individuals developed a rapid or an irregular heart beat when exposed to pulsed microwaves (from a cordless phone base station) at levels considered safe by the WHO, FCC, and Health Canada (Havas et al. 2010).

During the past year I have heard stories that children who attend schools with WiFi are complaining of a racing heart while in school (link to video).  Two of these students in the Barrie area (Canada) were given heart monitors to wear and one young girl was scheduled for heart surgery because her cardiologist couldn’t figure out what was wrong.  Her parents postponed the operation, removed the WiFi in their home, and her symptoms did not return during the summer when she wasn’t attending school.

During the past few years two different students, also in the Barrie region, experienced exercise-related sudden cardiac arrest.  Fortunately they got help quickly and survived.  Schools have now installed defibrillators as a consequence.

Is it normal for young people to complain of heart problems and for two students in a relatively small community to experience sudden cardiac arrest?

I began to research this subject and learned that sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death among athletes (Drezner et al. 2008) and appears to be increasing among adolescents and young adults (Maron et al. 2009Zheng et al. 2005).  Sudden death among athletes increased slowly from 1980 to 1995 and then rose suddenly in 1996 and continued to increase up to 2006, when the study was terminated (Maron et al. 2009) (See figure 1). Coronary heart disease and blunt trauma to the chest during competition have been identified as the cause in some cases but other cases remain a mystery.

Doctors do not know the reason for this disturbing trend and according to one study (Dencheve et al. 2010), medication for children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may increase the risk for sudden cardiac death.

One aspect that has not be considered is the increasing exposure to microwave radiation from mobile phones, cell phone antennas, and wireless technologies in the home and school environment.  Could it be that our low level exposure to microwave radiation is placing undue stress on the nervous system of these children and is contributing to heart irregularities that become exacerbated with exercise resulting in sudden cardiac arrest?  If microwaves at low intensities (as shown in our study) can affect adult hearts then this radiation can certainly affect the hearts of children.

In November 2010, two schools in the Barrie area were monitored for microwave radiation.  What is particularly disturbing about the results obtained is that of the 20 rooms measured 17 of the classrooms had levels at or above the levels that caused heart irregularities among adults in our heart rate variability study (0.003 milliwatts/cm2). But even more disturbing is that levels of microwave radiation exceeded Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline near a computer in one classroom (1.342 vs 1 milliW/cm2)!  I will write more about this in a separate report.

We know that pace makers can malfunction if they are exposed to interfering microwave frequencies and people with pace makers are told to stay away from microwave ovens and other microwave emitting devices.  The newer pace makers have shielding to prevent interference.  But the human heart comes without a shield.  So it is not only the child or adult with a pace maker that needs to be careful about their exposure to microwaves, all of us need to be aware that this radiation may affect the heart.

This concept is supported by the early research on microwave radiation.  Cardiovascular problems seem to be common among microwave workers.  In a previous pick of the week (#22:  A Very Important Symposium), Healer (1970) stated that:

In the interest of occupational hygiene, many Soviet investigators (and at least one U.S. researcher) have recommended that cardiovascular abnormalities be used as screening criteria to exclude people from occupations involving radio-frequency exposures.

This week’s “Pick of the Week 24” supports the statement above.  It is a study, also published in 1970, documenting cardiovascular changes among microwave workers.

Glotova, KV, Sadchikova MN.  1970.  Development and clinical course of cardiovascular changes after chronic exposure to microwave irradiation, Effect of Microwave Irradiation, Arlington, VA, Joint Publication Research Service, (JPRS 51238), 3 pp. Click here to download pdf of study.

The authors of this publication were with the Institute of Labor Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow.  This is just one in a series of study from the Soviet Union that examines the effect of microwave radiation on the nervous and cardiovascular system.  My comments are in square brackets [ ].

The purpose of this report was “to describe the nature, severity, and clinical course of the cardiovascular changes that follow chronic exposure to microwave irradiation. This information was derived from long-term [3 to 6 years] clinical observations on 130 patients. The data pertain to 105 (90 males and 15 females) patients. Those with chronic tonsillitis, organic neurologic lesions, and cranial trauma were excluded.

The patients had been working with microwaves in the one-centimeter range waves for at least 5 years and were exposed to fairly intense levels especially in the early years (at and below several milliW/cm2).  Intensities above 1 mW/cm2would now be considered high exposure.

Subjects were placed into two groups.  Subjects in group one had asthenia (weakness and low energy), and complained of headache, fatigue, insomnia and pains in the heart region.  A number of these persons had arterial hypotension (low blood pressure) and bradycardia (slow heart rate).

Subjects in group two complained of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, and vertigo.  Some experienced autonomic-vascular crises with severe headaches, chills, tremor, loss of consciousness, pallor or reddening of the face, constricting pain in the heart, labored breathing followed by great weakness.  Subjects in this group were more likely to experience tachycardia  (a rapid heart rate) and high blood pressure, autonomic-vascular dysfunction and hypothalamic insufficiency.  The hypothalamus, a small portion of the brain just above the brain stem, links the nervous system to the endocrine system and controls body temperature, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleep and circadian cycles. A hypothalamic insufficiency could affect any of these functions.

The authors concluded the following:

Thus, long-term observations showed that the nature and intensity of the cardiovascular reactions to prolonged exposure to microwaves are closely related to neurologic changes, especially those in the autonomic nervous system. They also vary with the individual. Some exhibit for a long time only mild asthenic symptoms with sinus bradycardia and arterial hypotension with no signs of general or regional hemodynamic disturbances.

Others develop autonomic-vascular dysfunction, often with symptoms of hypothalamic insufficiency and angiospasm [spasmodic contraction of the blood vessels with increase in blood pressure] which sometimes impair the cerebral[brain] and coronal [heart] circulation.”

********

The early literature showing cardiovascular dysfunction among microwave workers, our study showing heart rate irregularities with pulsed microwave exposure at a fraction of international microwave exposure guidelines; the complaints of electrically hypersensitive individuals of heart irregularities; student complaints of heart flutters and a racing heart; and the increase in the rate of sudden cardiac arrest among young people to the point that schools are installing defibrillators cannot be ignored.

Just as workers ought to be screened if they are going to work with microwave radiation,students ought to be to screened each year at school to ensure that they do not have an underlying heart condition that may be exacerbated with WiFi exposure.

A heart flutter may be an early warning that something more serious can happen.  Anyone who experiences a rapid or irregular heart rate that comes on suddenly with mild or no physical exertion when they are exposed to wireless technology should heed the warning, minimize their exposure as quickly as possible and visit a cardiologist.

 

___________

Dr Magda Havas

PHYSICAL BASIS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS WITH BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

February 22, 2011.  A workshop sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Medical Research and Development Command, and the Bureau of Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration was held at the University of Maryland in 1977.  The Proceedings of that workshop are available here as a pdf document.

Taylor, L.S. and A.Y. Cheung (editors).  The Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems.  Proceedings of a workshop held at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, June 15-17, 1977.  410 pp.

Foreward

This volume contains the proceedings of a Workshop on the Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems held at the University of Maryland on June 15-17, 1977. The workshop was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Medical Research and Development Command and the Bureau of Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration.

The wide application of industrial, commercial and military devices and systems which radiate frequencies in the radiofrequency and microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum plus numerous only partially understood indications of microwave effects upon living organisms have raised important questions of the physical basis of the interactions of electromagnetic fields with biological systems. These questions must be answered if the development of regulatory standards and of methods and techniques for controlling radiofrequency and microwave exposure is to be achieved. The same questions must be answered in connection with present and proposed therapeutic applications of these waves. The rapid increase in the use of these frequencies makes these questions matters of imperative concern, particularly in view of the possibilities of cumulative or delayed effects of exposure.

The study of electromagnetic interactions with biological systems brings together diverse specialties in the fields of physics, engineering, biology and chemistry in a highly interdependent way. Progress towards practical solutions of the problems involved will depend upon the development of experimental techniques and instruments and of a sufficient general theoretical base to inform and react with the experimental investigations. The purpose of the Workshop on the Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Interactions with Biological Systems was to bring together the leading investigators in the field to present the results of recent research, to determine the present status of the field and the priority of significant problem areas, and to critically evaluate conflicting theoretical interpretations and experimental techniques. These proceedings contain the formal papers prepared by the invited speakers plus a number of contributed papers given by other participants in the Workshop. Transcriptions were made of the discussion periods following each paper and edited versions of these are included; the editors bear the responsibility for any misquotation.

Table of Contents

1. Survey of Microwave and Radiofrequency Biological Effects and Mechanisms. S. Cleary.

2. Molecular Absorption of Non-Ionizing Radiation in Biological Systems. K. D. Straub.

3. Millimeter Wave and Far-Infrared Absorption in Biological Systems. K. Illinger.

4 Cooperative Quantum Mechanical Mechanisms for Resonance Absorption of Non-Ionizing Radiation. I. Grodsky.

5. Basics of ELF Fields and Biosphere Effects. O. Schmitt.

6. Possible Mechanisms of Weak Electromagnetic Field Coupling in Brain Tissue. s. M. Bawin, A. Sheppard and W. R. Adey.

7. Classical Theory of Microwave Interactions with Biological Systems. H. Schwan.

8. Determination of Bound Water in Biological Materials from Dielectric Measurements. E. Grant.

9. Interfacial and Intracellular Water: Expected Anomalies in Dielectric Properties. J. S. Clegg and W. Drost-Hansen.

10. Microwave Frequencies and the Structure of the Double Helix. E. Prohofsky.

11. Techniques of Raman Spectroscopy Applied to Study the Effects of Microwaves upon Synthetic and Naturally Occurring Lipid Membranes. J. P. Sheridan, R. Priest, P. Schoen, and J. M. Schnur.

12. Evanescent Waves and Waves in Absorbing Media. L. Felsen.

13. Microwave and RF Dosimetry. c. K. Chou and A. w. Guy.

14. Electric Field Measurements Within Biological Media. A. Cheung.

15. Some Recent Results on Deposition of Electromagnetic Energy in Animals and Models of Man. o. P. Gandhi and M. J. Hagmann.

16. Thermometry in Strong Electromagnetic Fields. T. c. Cetas.

17. Non-Perturbing Microprobes for Measurements in Electromagnetic Fields. A. Deficis and A. Priou.

18. The Viscometric Thermometer. c. A. Cain, M. M. Chen, K. L. Lam and J. Mullin.

19. Microwave Thermography: Physical Principles and Diagnostic Applications. P. C. Myers and A. H. Barrett.

20. Design and Standardization of Exposure Systems for RF and Microwave Experimentation. M. L. Swicord and H. S. Ho.

21. Calibration Techniques for Microwave and RF Exposure Measurement Devices. H. I. Bassen.

22. Workshop Summary: S. Cleary.

23. Panel Discussion – Principal Speakers and Participants.

24. Workshop Attendees.

___________

Dr Magda Havas

EARLY RESEARCH ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION: 1940-1960

February 21, 2011.  The early research on biological effects of microwave radiation between 1940-1960 is reviewed by Cook and colleagues and is available herefor download as a pdf.

Cook, H.J., N.H. Steneck, A.J. Vander, and G.L. Kane. 1980.  Early Research on the Biological Effects of Microwave Radiation: 1940-1960.  Annals of Science 37:323-351.

Summary

Two overriding considerations shaped the development of early research on the biological effects of microwave radiation-possible medical application (diathermy) and uncertainty about the hazards of exposure to radar. Reports in the late 1940s and early 1950s of hazards resulting from microwave exposure led to the near abandonment of medical research related to microwave diathermy at the same time that military and industrial concern over hazards grew, culminating in the massive research effort known as ‘the Tri-Service program’ (1957-1960). Both the early focus on medical application and the later search for hazards played important roles in dictating how this field of research developed as a science.

Contents

I. Introduction . . . 323
2. Background, 1885-1940: early work on short-waves and therapy . . . 324
3. Early debates over thermal and nonthermal effects. . . 326
4. The war years and after,1940-1953: military interests in harmful effects . . . 330
5. Return to therapeutic interest . . . 332
6. The discovery of medical hazards  . . .  333
7. Renewed concern, 1903-1957; worries of industry . . . 335
8. The military response to industrial concern . . . 337
9. The Tri-Service era:’1907-1960 . . . 341
10. Safety standards and the ending of the Tri-Service program . . . 345
11. Conclusions . . . 348

___________

Dr Magda Havas

INDEX OF PUBLICATIONS ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (0-1 00 GHZ)

February 20, 2011.  Thirty years ago, James Kinn with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Elliot Postow with Naval Medical R&D Command compiled a list of 3627 publications on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation from 1 to 100 GHz.  This 574 page document has been scanned and converted into a searchable pdf document that is available here.  The references in this document are listed by title and author.

ABSTRACT

Considerable research effort has been made into the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation over the frequency range of 0-100 GHz. This work intensified since 1966 when occupational exposure guidelines were made by the American Standards Institute – C95.9. During this period and especially in the last several years it has become clear that a cumulative bibliography of peer reviewed publications reporting this research was needed.

This publication lists 3627 articles published in world literature dealing with the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation over the frequency range of 0-100 GHz. The contents have been compiled from the data bases of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Navy Department. The bibliography covers the published work that was available to March 1980.

Advertisements