January 5, 2012.  In May of 2011, the IARC (International Association for Research on Cancer) declared radio frequency radiation as a possible cause of cancer. In this video you will listen to excerpts from the press conference and the related microwave radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers. You can then decide if you want to live near cell towers and if you want to hold a mobile phone next to your brain.

December 31, 2011.  Because we cannot hear, see, feel, taste, or smell microwave (MW) or radio frequency (RF) radiation most people are unaware when they are exposed, unless of course they are sensitive or have a meter to measure their exposure.

Some meters that detect MW radiation convert the MW signal into sound, which mimics the frequencies and pulses emitted by various devices including mobile phones, wireless baby monitors, blue tooth devices, Wi-Fi routers and smart phones or cell phone antennas.  These meters are more informative that those which just provide a digital number.  The audio meters can tell you the different audio signatures these device make.  And there is evidence that the pulsed digital frequencies are more harmful than continuous wave forms.

The sounds made by the devices in the image below have been recorded and you can download an interactive pdf  that contains the sounds (click here to download).  ATTENTION:  you must accept or trust this document after you have opened it for playback.  Go to “options” and select “trust this document always”.

You can listen to the frequencies as you click on each image.  You will notice that each device produces a slightly different frequency and pulse rate.

Can you imagine the cacophony of sounds we would hear when all of these devices are operating in one environment? Unfortunately this is the norm in many places including homes, schools, medical clinics, office buildings, coffee shops as well as in most urban communities.

To watch a video of how to use the meter, click here.  If you would like to purchase your own meter here are a few of my suggestions.  To measure radio frequency radiation you can use the gigahertz solution meters available here or the acoustimeter available here.  I highly recommend that if you purchase a meter, purchase one with sound so you can determine which device is operating from the sound signature.

Some people, who have developed a sensitivity to this radiation experience various symptoms when they are exposed including tinnitus (ringing in the ear), metallic taste, headache, foggy brain, dizziness, anxiety, heart palpitations, depression.  Some can’t sleep if they are exposed at night and the most common exposure in the bedroom is the cordless phone beside the bed or perhaps the cordless phone or Wi-Fi in another room or in neighbouring homes.  So even if you don’t have wireless technology in your home, your neighour’s wireless technology does not respect your personal living environment and encroaches since it penetrates walls and other types of structures.

Infants, exposed to wireless baby monitors, are at greatest risk because they are very sensitive to environmental contaminants and this radiation is a “contaminant”.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC)  and Health Canada (HC) should ban wireless baby monitors that constantly emit MW radiation.  Indeed, they should ban any household device that emits constant radiation. In Europe, “voice-activated” baby monitors are available.  In Europe , “on demand” cordless phones are common but in North America few people know they exist and voice-activated baby monitors are not yet available in stores.

We are told that smart meters emit radiation for only a few seconds each day.  That certainly isn’t the case for some smart meters.  Click here to listen to the sound (radiation) generated by one smart meter in Ontario documented by MartinWeatherall.

In 2002, I wrote an article for the Peterborough Examiner called “Cell Tower Blues.”  This story  is relevant to this discussion of exposure and our ability to sense microwave radiation.   Click here to download this article.

If you would like to hear the radiation in your environment there are several meters that make sound.

October 12, 2011.  Open Letter to Peterborough Mayor Bennett and City Councilors

In response to the article, “City council disagrees with cell tower site,” in the Peterborough Examiner  on October 12.  I would like to thank Councilor Andrew Beamer for recommending the application be turned down and Councilors Hall, Pappas and Riel for opposing the reduced radius for notification of the proposed cell tower site.  People should have the right to be informed if a cell tower is coming within 400 meters of their home, one of the largest investments they will ever make.  It could affect property values–and worse–their health.

As some of you know, I do research on the health effects of radio frequency radiation and I am deeply disturbed with what I see happening in Peterborough.  I have lived and worked in this community since 1989 and appreciate the fact that we are living in a city that is close to areas of natural beauty and, in a city that is (or rather was) relatively pristine when it comes to radio frequency radiation or electrosmog.

Within a short period many new towers and even more antennas have been erected within City limits.  All of these antennas are exposing those who live and work within 300 to 400 meters to levels of radiation that other countries deem to be unsafe.

In May, 2011, the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation as a “possible human carcinogen” and, while this sounds relatively harmless, you must realize that the scientific community does not make this classification lightly and did it despite considerable industry lobbying.  Indeed, one member of the committee was relieved of his duties just prior to that meeting in May because of close ties to the telecom industry.  Others with close ties remain on the committee.

Recently, October 4, 2011, Health Canada issued a warning that children under the age of 18 should limit their use of cell phones. Those speaking on a cell phone may be exposed for a few minutes a day, possibly longer for heavy cell phone users, but people who live and work near antennas are exposed for hours each day.  Scientific studies recognize that the problem is with long-term, chronic exposure to levels that are well within Health Canada’s safety guidelines.  If we continue to build these antennas we will be exposed to this radiation 24/7!  Is this what we want as a community?

I am concerned about the proximity of towers to schools and residential areas and equally concerned about the number of antennas placed on any one tower.  With more antennas we have more radiation.  Co-location is important but it comes at a cost.  Each wireless provider wants to be the first to erect towers because they can rent the space to their competitors. Towers have become vertical real estate.

Some of my friends in Toronto are no longer able to live in their homes because 4G has come to their neighbourhood.  This is a much more powerful antenna that should not be placed within 1000 meters of homes. While your cordless phone may have a working radius of 100 meters, 4G antennas have a working radius well over 30 km.

You are told that scientist cannot agree if this radiation is harmful or not. Scientists who have been working on the health effects of this radiation will unanimously agree that long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation at levels well below Health Canada’s guidelines are harmful to human health. As a matter of fact, during the past 10 years leading scientists and medical doctors have signed at least 10 international resolutions and appeals asking that international guidelines be reduced.  Their requests have gone unheeded.  Despite this, countries in Europe and Asia are reducing their guidelines to levels that are a fraction of the guidelines in Canada.

Wind Mobile wants to promote competition for those using this technology and to do this they have to erect an “unknown” number of antennas for the “cell” concept to work, BUT, we need to ask, “what cost are the citizens of Peterborough willing to pay for this competition?”

I don’t know of anything that is more important than our health and the decisions you make, as City Councilors, will affect the health of Peterborough citizens for decades to come.   The future is in your hands.  Once you give approval for these antennas, there is no turning back.

Peterborough is still a safe place to live with “relatively” low levels of radiation but it won’t be if we continue down this slippery slope that we so eagerly and foolishly embarked on. Competition . . . at what cost?

________

How many antennas does Peterborough need?

A few years ago I had a student determine how many antennas were present in Peterborough each decade starting in the 1950s.  He found records for 2 antennas in the 50s, 5 in the 60s, 22 in the 70s, 91 in the 80s, and 235 in the 90s.  Up to and including 1989, less than 10% of the antennas had frequencies above 500 MHz.  

During the 90s we had a boom in the number of antennas erected, especially those at higher frequencies for cell phone communication. During the 90s more than 50% of the antennas had frequencies above 500 MHz.

I went to the Industry Canada site, Spectrum Direct, and did a search for the number of antennas within a 7 km-radius of downtown Peterborough centered on Charlotte and George Street.  This 7 km takes us up to Trent University.

As of October 2011, within this area there were 375 transmitting antennas and 60% of them have frequencies above 500 MHz.  The highest frequency documented on the Industry Canada website for this area is 23.47 GHz.

How many more antennas does Peterborough need and what are the levels of radiation near these antenna sites?

A few years ago we measured radio frequency in downtown Peterborough and, except for a few hot spots (like the corner of Almer and Charlotte), the levels were so low I thought my meter wasn’t working properly.  Perhaps it is time to repeat those measurements.

________

For those who want to know how many antennas are near a particular location within Canada, visit Geographical Area Search at Spectrum Direct (click here), Industry Canada’s Website.

Enter the search criteria.  Select the range of frequencies; select transmitting antennas (Tx), receiving antennas (Rx) or both.  Enter the location using latitude and longitude (ddmmss).  This information is available at Google Earth. Select the desired radius for the search and the type of stations.  Then select the format for your output.  If you want to view the antennas but not manipulate the data then HTML will work.  Then all you have to do is click on “find” and the data appears within a matter of seconds.

Below are the settings I used for Peterborough.

It is much easier to find antennas in the U.S. using www.antennasearch.com.

At this site, all you have to do is enter the address.  What could be simpler!

A few years ago students in one of my courses documented the number of antennas near schools in all U.S. state capitals.  The data are available in our BRAG report (click here to download).  This could make a good project for science classes.  Click here for more information.

October 8, 2011.  On October 4, 2011, Health Canada issued a warning for those under the age of 18 to limit their cell phone use. Click here for document.  This warning comes 5 months (May 31, 2011) after the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation as a possible human carcinogen and it comes more than a year after cell phone providers issued warnings about the use of cell phones in their user manuals.

If Health Canada truly cared about the health of Canadians, this is what they would do.

1.  They would issue a warning (similar to that Council of Europe) that wireless routers be replaced with wired routers for internet access in schools, at home, and at work. No one should be exposed for hours each day to pulsed microwave radiation generated by Wi-Fi routers.  For places that need to have wireless routers, they should use the patent issued to Swisscom for their “on demand” routers that radiate only when in use.

2.  They would issue an immediate ban on wireless baby monitors that emit radio frequency radiation 24/7  and would insist that only “voice activated” baby monitors be sold in Canada. These are available in Europe. Click here for more information.

3.  They would issue an immediate ban on cordless phones that emit radiation 24/7 and insist that only ECO DECT plus phones (or those that emit radiaton only when in use) be sold in Canada.  These are common in Europe and are now available in North America.

4.  They would ask cell phone providers who have installed cell phone antennas on top of buildings or on the side of buildings to ensure that the radiation does not leak through to the roof or the walls and that nearby buildings are not within the line of radiation.  Shielding on the roof or wall can eliminate exposure to occupants.  This should be done by the cell phone provider.  Levels should not exceed those recommended in Switzerland for “sensitive places.”

5.  They would request independent monitoring of antennas placed on or near school property and they would ensure that levels not exceed those recommended in Switzerland for “sensitive places.”

6.  They would remove the ban on incandescent light bulbs and insist that compact fluorescent light bulbs be designed so they do not emit UV radiation, dirty electricity or radio frequency radiation and that the bulbs are shatter-proof so that the mercury is not released into the environment during accidental breakage.

7.  They would reconsider the deployment of wireless smart meters and determine ways to send the information along wires instead.

8.  They would identify and enforce certain places that remain wireless-free (similar to smoke-free environments).  This is particularly important in public places (schools, hospitals, hotels, restaurants, libraries) and on public transit (buses, trains, airplanes).

9.  They would reduce their exposure  guidelines and base these new guidelines on biological effects rather than just thermal effects.

10.  They would establish health clinics to deal with the growing number of people complaining about electrohypersensitivity and provide educational packages for doctors and other health care professionals.

If Health Canada truly cared about the Health of Canadians, they could be leaders in this field be adopting the recommendations above.

June 11, 2011.   Below are some of the key resolutions/appeals released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998, regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with electricity and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generated by wireless devices.

Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (or delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological and health consequences at levels well below existing guidelines.  Children are particularly vulnerable.   It is irresponsible of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by these experts.

Here are the resolutions/appeals/reports  in reverse chronological order:

18.  May 31, 2011: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) reclassified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogen to humans).  This applies to all forms of radio frequency radiation (and not just cell phones as some inaccurately claim).  Click here for press release.  Final report will be published in the July 1^st issue of The Lancet Oncology.

17.  May 2011: The Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (PACE) released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their effect on the Environment. This document has some excellent recommendations regarding cell phones, cordless phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi, WLAN, WiMax, power lines, relay antenna base stations; with special concerns expressed for the protection of children and those who are electrosensitive.  Click here for document.

16.  May 2011: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Electrohypersensitivity (EHS),  Summary of meeting at the WHO headquarters Geneva, May 13, 2011. Click here for report.  Some statements from this meeting are quoted below:

We need to include these illnesses [MCS and EHS] in the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD), because what makes it more difficult for legal recognition is precisely the lack of code for these diseases in the ICD.

The adverse reactions to chemicals or electromagnetic radiation vary in duration according to each patient, and the manifestations differ too. When the patient is again exposed, symptoms usually worsen or result in the appearance of new symptoms.

The process of these diseases (MCS and EHS) is chronic and the patient’s situation is exacerbated if he/she lives in a toxic environment, such as near Tarragona petrochemical industry or subjected to electromagnetic radiation: emissions in the neighborhood, mobile phone antennas , etc. The patient has to avoid re-exposure.

We are facing very high numbers of people already diagnosed . . . between 12% and 15% of the population has some kind of disturbance in the presence of a chemical substance.  In the EHS, figures of affected people are between 3 and 6% of the population, but these numbers are growing continuously.

Each country can recognize these diseases and include them in their ICE, independently of WHO, since according to the WHO countries have sovereignty on this issue.

15.  April 2011: The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) released their Resolution entitled “Electromagnetic fields from Mobile Phones:  Health Effect on Children and Teenagers”.  Click here for report.

The Committee presents some startling statistics [references provided in original document].

In April 2008, the RNCNIRP reviewed the short-term and long-term effects of mobile phone use for children. In particular, it reviewed possible decrease of intellectual abilities and cognition together with possible increases in susceptibility to epileptic fits, “acquired dementia” and degeneration of cerebral nervous structures. The results of clinical studies have shown that chronic exposure to RF EMF may lead to borderline psychosomatic disorders. In 2010, a number of papers published in Russian and foreign peer-reviewed journals showed a response to RF EMF exposure from the immune system.

. . .  since 2000 there has been a steady growth in the incidence of childhood diseases identified by RNCNIRP as “possible diseases” from mobile phone use.  Of particular concern is the morbidity increase among young people aged 15 to 19 years (it is very likely that most of them are mobile phone users for a long period of time). Compared to 2009, the number of CNS [central nervous system] disorders among 15 to 17 year-old has grown by 85%, the number of individuals with epilepsy or epileptic syndrome has grown by 36%, the number of “mental retardation” cases has grown by 11%, and the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders has grown by 82%.  In group of children aged less than 14 years there was a 64% growth in the number of blood disorders and immune status disorders, and 58% growth in nervous disorders. The number of patients aged 15 to 17 years old having consultations and treatment due to CNS disorders has grown by 72%.

Because of this the RNCNIRP considers it important to conduct a scientific study to determine whether the growth in morbidity resulted from EMF exposure from mobile phone use or whether it was caused by other factors.

14.  2010: Seletun Statement, Norway:  The International Electromagnetic Field Alliance (IEMFA) released their report entitled Scientific Panel on Electromagnetic Field Health Risks: Consensus Points, Recommendations, and Rationales following a scientific meeting at Seletun Norway November 2009.  The summary/abstract is provided below. Click here for publication.  Click here for report and short video of Dr. Olle Johansson.

Summary: In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF exposures (static to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use in weather and transportation. The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide.

Conclusions in this report build upon prior scientific and public health reports and resolutions documenting the following consensus points:

a) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards.

b) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures.

13.  2009: EU Parliament Electromagnetic Report and Resolution entitled: European Parliament Resolution on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields, was adopted February 17, 2009 with 29 recommendations. Click here for report.

12.  2009: Porto Alegre Resolution, Brazil.  Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.  Click here for document.

11.  2008: Venice Resolution, Italy.  International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) Scientists recognize biological effects at non-thermal levels, that standards are inadequate, that electro-sensitivity exists and that there is a need to research mechanisms.  Click here for Venice Resolution.

Three key statements are provided below:

We take exception to the claim of the wireless communication industry that there is no credible scientific evidence to conclude there a risk. Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before, which is a further reason to justify precautions be taken to lower exposure standards in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.

We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity; that this adverse health condition can be quite disabling; and, that this condition requires further urgent investigation and recognition.

We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant standards are developed to protect against, not only the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the head, but also adverse effects of the signals on biochemistry, physiology and electrical biorhythms.

10.  2007: BioInitiative Report, USA.  In response to statements that there are no scientific studies showing adverse biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation, a group of researchers produced the BioInitiative Report that documents 2000 studies showing biological effects of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields and radio frequency (RF) radiation and calling for biologically based exposure guidelines. This document was criticized for not having been peer-reviewed even though most of the studies cited in this document were peer-reviewed. Click here for pdf.

Since then some of the BioInitiative papers as well as ones by other authors have appeared in a special issue of the peer-reviewd journal Pathophysiology (Volume 16 Issues 2-3, 2009). The papers in this journal document EMF effects on DNA,  EMF effects on the brain, EMF in the environment, and science as a guide to public policy.  Click here for abstracts.

9.  2006: Benevento Resolution, Italy.  The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) organized a conference entitled:  The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation. Scientists at this conference signed the Benevento Resolution (click here for pdf)  that consists of 7 major statements. Among those statements are the following:

1.  . . . there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.

4.  Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.

6.  We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle– as some nations have already done.

8.  2005: Helsinki Appeal, Finland. Physicians and researchers presented the Helsinki Appeal to the European Parliament.  Click here for document. They state that:

The present safety standards of ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) do not recognize the biological effects caused by non-ionizing radiation except those induced by the thermal effect. In the light of recent scientific information, the standards recommended by ICNIRP have become obsolete and should be rejected. Especially children and other persons at risk should be taken into account when re-evaluating the limits regarding the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation.  Call for new safety standards, reject International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines.

7. 2005: Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association (IDEA), Ireland. Members of IDEA wrote a position paper on electromagnetic radiation. Doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is increasing and request advice from government on how to treat EHS.  Click here for document. Below is a quote from this document.

The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association believes that the Irish Government should urgently review the information currently available internationally on the topic of the thermal and non-thermal effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation with a view to immediately initiating appropriate research into the adverse health effects of exposure to all forms of non-ionising radiation in this country, and into the forms of treatment available elsewhere. Before the results of this research are available, an epidemiological database should be initiated of individuals suffering from symptoms thought to be related to exposure to non-ionising radiation. Those claiming to be suffering from the effects of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation should have their claims investigated in a sensitive and thorough way, and appropriate treatment provided by the State.

The strictest possible safety regulations should be established for the installation of masts and transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to electro-magnetic radiation.

6.  2002. Catania Resolution, Italy.  This resolution was signed by scientists at the international conference “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields-Scientific and Legal Issues”.  Click here for resolution. Three of their statements are provided below:

1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.

4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.

5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.

5.  2002 : Freiburg Appeal, Germany. Physicians request tougher guidelines for radio frequency exposure.  This document was endorsed by thousands of healthcare practitioners.  Click here for pdf.  Below is a quote from this report.

We have observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases among our patients, especially:

· Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD)
· Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications
· Heart rhythm disorders
· Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
· Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
· Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors

Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:

· Headaches, migraines
· Chronic exhaustion
· Inner agitation
· Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
· Tinnitus
· Susceptibility to infection
· Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not explain even the most conspicuous symptoms

Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see especially after carefully-directed inquiry a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high -frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as:

· Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity
· Intensive mobile telephone use
· Installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood

We can no longer believe this to be purely coincidence, for:

· Too often do we observe a marked concentration of particular illnesses in correspondingly HFMR-polluted areas or apartments;
· Too often does a long-term disease or affliction improve or disappear in a relatively short time after reduction or elimination of HFMR pollution in the patient’s environment;
· Too often are our observations confirmed by on-site measurements of HFMR of unusual intensity.

4.  2002: Salzburg Resolution, Austria. The Salzburg Resolution on Mobile Telecommunication Base Stations makes four recommendations including preliminary guidelines 0f 0.1 microW/cm2 for sum of all emissions from mobile phone stations.  This is well below the current ICNIRP guidelines and those in Canada and the US (1000 microW/cm2) and is slightly lower than guidelines in Switzerland, Italy, Russia, China (10 mciroW/cm2).   Click here for document.

3.  2000: Stewart Report, UK. The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) produced a report, Mobile Phones and Health, that is commonly referred to as the Stewart Report, named after its Chairman Sir William Stewart.  Click here for pdf.   A quote from the foreward shows how much our understanding of this issue has changed since 2000.

The report points out that the balance of evidence does not suggest mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects, although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. There is also evidence that in some cases people’s well-being may be adversely affected by the insensitive siting of base stations. New mechanisms need to be set in place to prevent that happening.

The report goes on to state that:

1.17.  The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

1.18  There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . .

1.19  . . . We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

1.20 In the light of the above considerations we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.

2.  1998: Vienna EMF Resolution, Austria. At a Workshop on Possible Biological and Health Effects of RF Electromagnetic Fields, the scientists agreed on the following:

The participants agreed that biological effects from low-intensity exposures are scientifically established. However, the current state of scientific consensus is inadequate to derive reliable exposure standards. The existing evidence demands an increase in the research efforts on the possible health impact and on an adequate exposure and dose asses.

Base stations: How could satisfactory Public Participation be ensured?

The public should be given timely participation in the process. This should include information on technical and exposure data as well as information on the status of the health debate. Public participation in the decision (limits, siting, etc.) should be enabled.

Cellular phones: How could the situation of the users be improved?

Technical data should be made available to the users to allow comparison with respect to EMF-exposure. In order to promote prudent usage, sufficient information on the health debate should be provided. This procedure should offer opportunities for the users to manage reduction in EMF-exposure. In addition, this process could stimulate further developmentlow-intensity emission devices

Regarding legal aspects . . .

there is protection deficit in the public and private laws which is unsatisfactory. The legislator is requested to solve the conflict of interests between the industries commission on one side and the neighbours involvement and their interests on protection of life and health on the other side. Because of the constitutionally determined objectives of the state to comprehensively protect the environment, there is a demand of acting precautionary on the polititcal and legal level.

The Vienna declaration on electromagnetic fields recommended 13 detailed action items for parliament to consider.  Click here to read those items and to download pdf.

1.  1997:  Boston Physicians’ and Scientists’ Petition.  We the undersigned physicians and scientists call upon public health officials to intervene to halt the initiation of communication transmissions employing ground level, horizontally transmitted, pulsed microwaves in Boston.  This form of transmission is scheduled to begin June, 1997, by the Sprint Corporation for personal communications systems (PCS). Given the biological plausibility of negative health impacts, particularly to the human nervous system, as well as anecdotal evidence of illness and death from such exposures in cities where transmission has already been implemented, and voluminous medical studies indicating human and ecological harm from microwaves, we urge the suspension of that implementation pending full public notification of its potential hazards and the full review and determination of its safety by the scientific community.

With 97 signatures sent to ENHALE (Environmental Health Advocacy League], Box 425 Concord MA, 01742.

*****

Based on these resolutions and appeals from international groups of physicians and scientists immediate action is required to protect public health from continued increasing exposure to radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields.

I call on . . .

1. regulators around the world to reexamine existing guidelines for both EMF and EMR and to reduce them to the lowest possible levels to protect the public and workers.  Values above 4 milliGauss (low frequency magnetic fields); above 0.1 microW/cm2 (power density for radio frequency radiation) and above 40 GS units (dirty electricity) have been associated with adverse health effects in peer reviewed scientific publications!
2. government agencies responsibility for the location of both base stations and power lines to keep distances at least 400 meters (base stations) and 100 meters (transmission lines) from residential properties as well as school and health care facilities.
3. utilities (water, gas, electricity) to reconsider the use of wireless smart meters and provide wired options for those who are sensitive, for those who do not want to be exposed, and for those in densely populated settings.
4. manufacturers who are providing technology that uses electricity and/or emits radio frequency radiation to re-engineer their products to provide the minimum radiation possible.  This includes light bulbs, computers, wireless home devices like baby monitors and cordless phones, cell phones, smart meters, plasma TVs, among others.
5. architects, builders, electricians, and plumbers to design and construct buildings that are based on principles of good electromagnetic hygiene.  This includes using materials that absorb or shield building interiors from microwave radiation especially near external sources of this radiation and in multi-unit buildings; to provide wired alternatives to wireless devices; to properly wire and ground buildings to minimize low frequency electromagnetic fields and to eliminate ground current problems; and to install filters on electrical panels and/or throughout the building to ensure good power quality.
6. local, state, federal health authorities to educate medical professions about the potential biological effects of both low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic energy; about the growing number of people who have electrosensitivity (ES) or electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and to alert them on how they can help their patients in terms of minimizing their exposure and promoting their recovery.
7. hospitals and
   
8. school boards should choose wired internet access over WiFi (wireless technology) and not allow towers/antennas within 400 meters of their school property.
9. parents to practice good electromagnetic hygiene especially in the bedroom and especially for their children.  This involves using wired rather than wireless devices in the home, keeping electric appliances away from the bed, turning off/unplugging devices when not in use.
10. the media to provide information to the public about the health and safety of using this technology; to rely on “independent experts” who do not receive funding or other benefits based on the outcome of research studies; and to identify experts funded by the industry as “industry representatives”.   The integrity of many of these scientists leaves much to be desired.

June 5, 2011.  The World Health Organization classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic.  What does this mean for Canadians?

After a week-long meeting in Lyon, France, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO)—classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (otherwise known as radiofrequency radiation or RFR) as a class 2B carcinogen, meaning that it is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.  Lead and DDT are two examples in the same category, and both are banned for public use in Canada.

PACE calls on governments to ‘take all reasonable measures’ to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields.  This is an important call to act and becomes even more imperative with the new classification of radio frequencies as possible carcinogenic to humans.  Click here for document.

It turns out that Canada has “observer status” with the Council of Europe as outlined in the following document (click here and here) and as such we are expected to conform with the rules applicable to such agreements. The PACE meets once every quarter-year and the six delegates and/or six substitutes from Canada ARE supposed to attend.  The six representatives and the six substitutes are provided here. Among the representatives are Jean Dorion (Bloc), Percy Downe (Liberal), Michael MacDonald (Conservative), Dean Del Mastro (Conservative) and Massimo Pacetti (Liberal). David Tilson (Conservative) is the chair of this committee.

What does this mean for Canadians?

It means that Health Canada is obliged to go back to the drawing board and revise its guideline for radiofrequency radiation. The current Health Canada guideline is one of the least protective in the world—along with the United States and Great Britain.

It means that medical officers of health need to notify doctors of the potential carcinogenicity of devices that emit radiofrequency radiation: cell phones as well as the neighbourhood cell phone antennas; cordless phones; wireless baby monitors; smart meters for electricity, water and natural gas consumption; WiFi routers in homes, schools, offices and public places including coffee shops, buses, trains, airports, airplanes, hospitals, hotels as well as city-wide WiFi. Broadcast antennas and radar used by airports, marine and military installations also emit radiofrequency radiation.

It means that operation and installation of wireless technology in schools, universities, and hospitals must be halted—possibly reverting to existing wired capability or requiring new wired installations.  Operation and installation of wireless technology in smart meters for electricity and water use also must be halted and redirected to wired technology.

It means that the placement of antennas near schools and homes and on high-rise buildings should be curtailed and, where necessary, shielding be used to minimize public exposure.  Studies show that a minimum distance of 400 meters is necessary to reduce electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS), which can cause one or numerous symptoms including sleep disturbance, chronic pain, mood and cognitive disorders, dizziness, nausea, heart problems, tinnitus (high-pitched or ringing noises in the ear) and various other symptoms.

It means that people who use wireless technology should reconsider how much exposure they are willing to tolerate.  By altering behaviour and replacing wireless with wired technology, exposure can be significantly reduced.  Shielding products are also available that range from clothing to bed canopies.

Scientists have been calling for a change in the classification of radiofrequency radiation for more than a decade and have been demanding that international and national guideless for radiofrequency and microwave radiation be significantly reduced to protect public health.

Finally IARC has recognized that radio frequency radiation is a possible carcinogen.  The next step is for the World Health Organization to acknowledge that RFR also interferes with the body’s reproductive processes, generates stress within the body leading to many of the chronic diseases of the 21^st century and experienced as accelerated aging.

A shortened version of this appeared in the Peterborough Examine , Letter to the Editor, June 2, 2011.

May 11, 2011.  The Toronto CN Tower, the world’s tallest tower at a height of 1815 feet, is offering a new attraction for those wanting a great view of Toronto and a real thrill: EdgeWalk. Starting August 1st 2011, for only $175,  you will be able to walk around the outside of the CN Tower with a hook to an overhead rail keeping you in place!  Read Carola Vyhnak’s report in the Toronto Star.

Those who participate may get an adrenalin rush not only from the height but also from the radiation emitted by the TV, radio and cell towers.

The CN Tower, completed in 1976, was built to improve communication for the police, firefighters, ambulance drivers, and for those wanting better TV and radio reception.  It is currently home to hundreds of antennas and provides transmission for UHF, VHF, television, FM radio, microwave transmissions and fixed mobile systems. According to the official website, “All major Broadcast, AM, FM, and DAB Radio stations as well as wireless service providers use the CN Tower for transmission.“

According to one source, when the CBC built their building on Front St. W., across from the CN Tower, they had to install a lot of shielding to prevent interference.

A Report on the Safety from Electromagnetic Radiation in and around the CN Tower, produced by the Radiation Protection Bureau and published by the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that radiation exposure levels from the CN Tower Toronto  in 1976 “are within currently accepted limits for both microwave radiation for workers in the Tower and for the general public” and that “[t]here does not appear to be a health hazard from the electromagnetic radiations emitted from the CN Tower.”

Yet, based on the very same document, a senior official with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration stated that maintenance workers may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of radiation.

Click here for the 1980 Globe and Mail article “Radiation at CN Tower higher than US allows” and the corresponding health study about the CN Tower.

How could interpretation of the same data be so different? It turns out that the levels presented in the 1977 document are for individual broadcast frequencies used by TV and radio stations. If you add them all up for their cumulative exposure, it leads to a serious underestimate of wireless radiation exposures to people working near to the tower.  In one area that is only accessible to maintenance workers, it exceeded the Canadian safety guidelines and this area was designated a health hazard.

Back 25 years ago when these readings were taken the document states many of the transmitters placed on the tower were not yet functional. Since 1977, many more antennas for radio, tv and now cellphones have been installed on the CN Tower.  Today, if you walk around the City of Toronto with a radio frequency meter, the levels of radiation increase whenever you are in line of sight of the tower.  Are the levels at the CN Tower still below guidelines?  But more important, are the radiation levels safe for those who visit, work and now walk on the roof of the CN Tower? What about exposure of those who work and live in buildings surround the CN Tower? Will those who sign up for the EdgeWalk get more than they bargained for?

*****

REPORT ON THE SAFETY FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATIONS IN AND AROUND THE CN TOWER, TORONTO, MH Repacholi and MA Stuchly, Radiation Protection Bureau, Environmental Health Centre, Ottawa, 1977, 53 pp.

ABSTRACT

During July 1976 a survey of the electromagnetic radiation emissions from the CN Tower was made, to assess any possible health hazards to the general public and employees working within the Tower. Field intensity measurements were taken at all levels of occupancy within the CN Tower, on the roof of 5 downtown Toronto buildings, on 3 floors of the Bank of Montreal Building, and at ground level of the Toronto Dominion Plaza. Measurements were also taken along east, west and north radials from the CN Tower for distances up to 20 miles.

Unfortunately, at the time of the survey, not all the broadcast equipment had been installed into the CN Tower and some of the stations were not operating at their fully licenced power levels. However the survey results indicate that microwave radiation exposure levels are within currently accepted limits for both microwave radiation workers in the tower and for the general public. There does not appear to be a health hazard from the electromagnetic radiations emitted from the CN Tower.

Some interesting results from this document are as follows:

1.  The highest reading (2000 microW/cm²), in FM transmitter rooms Level 5, was double the Canadian guideline  (1000 microW/cm²) but was in a location that is not easily accessible and not frequently accessed.  I wonder if this area has signs stating that levels are above guidelines to warn workers? Level 5 is located right beside the EdgeWalk platform.

2.  The next highest reading (13 microW/cm²)  was at a height of 477 m.

3.  Power density readings are provided individually for each frequency on the space deck, sky pod roof, restaurant, upper and lower observation decks, outdoor terrace, and for the surrounding buildings.  This doesn’t make any sense from an exposure perspective as people in these areas are exposed to all of the frequencies simultaneously.  As a result this is a serious underestimation of the actual exposure and may account for difference in interpretation with Health and Welfare Canada stating this was safe and the US government recognizing that the cumulative frequencies are important and stating it was unsafe.

4.  It would be worth repeating these measurements in the same locations to see how much they have increased before opening this rooftop amusement attraction to the public.  Click here to learn more about safety procedures for workers that repair TV, radio and cell towers like the CN Tower.

March 3, 2011. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is considered one of the most influential publications used by the health industries to disseminate information to doctors. Many years ago, it had been used to advertise that cigarets were safe. Pictures of doctors where shown smoking and they often endorsed certain brands.

So when doctors read about a National Institutes of Health cell phone study in that AMA journal, and it shows 50 minutes of cell phone radiation increases metabolic activity in the brain – it’s a big red flag and an unlucky strike against the wireless industry.

Click HERE to read the study

No longer can Health Canada or the wireless industry scientists provide the disinformation that  ”non-thermal, non-ionizing microwave radiation has no biological effect on the human body”! Instead, they now say “there are no health effects”, which is equally false (see study on brain tumors and mobile phones).

Now, when a patient asks their doctor, “Doctor, is it safe to use my cell phone?  Can I give one to my child?”  The doctor now has a green light to say,” Well, I just read a study in a very prestigious medical journal that shows cell phones do affect the brain. We don’t yet know if this effect is harmful or not, so, until we do,  I suggest that you use a cell phone with caution and as something that could be dangerous.  And I certainly would encourage young people to avoid cell phones except for emergencies.”

So now the doctor is off the hook. “They” have warned us.

What few people realize is that it takes two to tango. If  a cell phone alters your brain, what is the radiation from a nearby cell phone base station antenna doing to your body? The cell phone and the antenna mounted on towers and building rooftops use the same frequencies to communicate.  The major difference is that if you live near a cell phone tower with multiple antennas, your entire body (and not just your head) is going to be exposed to this radiation. AND that exposure is for a much longer period than a single 50-minute exposure as in the JAMA study mentioned above.

I certainly would not want to live on the upper floors of a high rise building, in a city like Toronto, facing the CN Tower or facing a nearby building with multiple antennas on the roof.  It is unlikely that this long-term, cumulative exposure to microwave radiation is going to be benign.  Indeed people who live within 400 meters of these antennas often complain of ill health.

The Israel Health and Environment Ministries will ban new cell towers

The potential dangers of microwave radiation from cell phone towers is finally being announced to the general public by health authorities. Another red flag to the wireless industry was recently raised by  the government of Israel.

The director general of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Att. Alona Sheafer (Karo), and the director general of the Ministry of Health, Dr. Ronni Gamzu, have called on Communications Ministry director general Eden Bar-Tal to meet and discuss the implications of the move toward fourth generation (4G) mobile use, which necessitates the expansion of the mobile infrastructure.

The directors general went on to say that they will oppose any intention to expand the mobile infrastructure to accommodate 4G phones until such time that the need and justification for such a move are examined in depth and in coordination with the two ministries. Click HERE to read the story.

As the United States attempts to rollout the new true high speed 4G phones and towers capable of sending and receiving true 1GBps, Israel is putting on the brakes. This is good news for activists who are attempting to slow down the widespread adoption of this technology.  It seems that the message from activists is getting wide recognition.

The cell phone companies are now worried about this negative publicity. Instead of putting up new true high powered 4G towers that could be potentially dangerous, they have decided to rename the existing 3G HSPA wireless network to 4G! This has caused massive confusion for the public that is wanting and waiting to upgrade to the latest and greatest digital wireless device. Wireless hardware manufacturers are lost in a sea of confusion. Investors are worried about the future.   Read about it HERE

Clearly, something is going on behind the scenes . . . the wireless industry is on the run.

January 10, 2011.  The purpose of my website it to provide information about different types of electromagnetic pollution and what people can do to protect themselves and to regain their health. I try to present scientific information to a lay audience in a way that they will both understand and recognize the importance of the information.

While many people visit my website, a lot more watch the youtube videos that I create. Even kids watch these videos and it is important to reach the next generation.

Perhaps you have seen “Planet Irth” (April 2010) about a planet that becomes inundated with electrosmog and the irthlngs are warned by sensitives that this is not a good thing but no one listens.  Click here to watch this video.

Or you may have seen “Taming the Microwave Dragon” (December 2010) told in a fairy tale style with a similar message to Planet Irth.  Click here to watch this video.

Well, the newest in this “series” is called “Population Control & Microwave Radiation.”  It ponders the concept that some “elite group” is using microwave radiation to control the size of the human population. This video is deliberately intended to be provocative. Click here to watch this video.

Am I a supporter of conspiracy theories?  NO. Those with wealth and power have always tried, and will continue to try, to increase their wealth and power (combination of both greed and insecurity) and they will manipulate situations in their favor. This is not new. However, I believe that we do more damage to this planet and its inhabitants than that done by some elite group by a combination of greed, stupidity, and insecurity (both real and imaged) at all levels of society.

All of my youtube videos are meant to inform the audience about the harmful effects of electrosmog and what they can do to reduce their exposure and to protect themselves, if they choose to.  Drawings and cartoon characters make the “medicine” of the message more palatable and bring it to the attention of  younger audiences, who are increasingly becoming hooked on wireless technology.

“Knowledge is power” and these videos are meant to empower those who watch them.

Dec 21 2010 update.  In April, International EMF experts were invited to Ottawa to present information about the health effects of radio frequency radiation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA).  Those invited to participate were  Olle Johansson (Sweden), Andrew Goldsworthy (UK), Claude Monnet (next-up.org), Francois Therrien (Laval University, Quebec), Daniel Krewski (University of Ottawa, Canada), Magda Havas (Trent University, Canada) as well as reps from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Health Canada, and Industry Canada.

The details of the report are now available and these are their recommendations.

1. The Government of Canada consider providing funding to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in support of long-term studies examining the potential health impacts of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.

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.

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.

4. Health Canada and Industry Canada offer to provide information,
including awareness sessions on exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation.

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

You can view the report here in PDF.

Although these are only suggestions that  have been presented to Health Canada, the media has begun their campaign to insure that they are carried out in a timely matter.  Global’s 16X9 TV show is one example of how the media is attempting to shape the future of our wireless world and healthcare system.

Click here to download the audio of the HESA day 1 proceedings

(81MB MP3, 1 hr 36 min)

Click here to download the audio of the HESA day 2 proceedings
(76MB MP3, 1 hr 30 min)

Click here to download the audio of the combined day 1 & 2 proceedings
(157MB MP3, 3 hr 7 min)

Some interesting quotes from the participants.

Former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, who now heads up the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, said the industry is “fully compliant” with Health Canada’s regulations, and the science that supports the industry is independent.

“We know there is scientific, peer-reviewed studies done around the world and they all come to the same conclusion. The standards that are set ensure the devices are safe. There’s no credible study that has come to the conclusion that there is a risk to human health.”

Beth Pieterson, director general of Health Canada’s environmental and radiation health sciences directorate, said her department was constantly evaluating research and, if necessary, revising Safety Code 6.

Magda Havas said that there are more than 6,000 publications dealing with harmful effects of radiowave radiation. She also pointed out that the most recent version of Canada’s Safety Code 6 had removed the reference stating that “some persons are more sensitive to the effects of electromagnetic fields ( EMF) than others.” She wanted to know why that paragraph was removed.

Click here and here to read Dr. Havas’ written submission.

Read articles from The Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail , and the Ottawa Citizen

View Video from Global Newscast