January 23, 2012.  Update:  The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, dated January 19, 2012.

This letter begins:

Dear Commissioners:

The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available on request).  Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.  

The AAEM calls for the following:

• An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these serious public health issues are resolved.  Continuing with their installation would be extremely irresponsible.
• Modify the revised porposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.
• Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters.

Click here for pdf.

January 9, 2012.  In order to protect students against unnecessary microwave exposure, some parents and teachers have tried to prevent installation of Wi-Fi in their schools. Others have asked to have Wi-Fi replaced with wired internet access.  Here is a situation where a father, on behalf of his child, has taken legal action regarding Wi-Fi at a Portland Public School, in Portland Oregon.

Morrison v. Portland Public Schools:  United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO

Shawn E. Abrell is the Lead Counsel and Tyl W. Bakker is the Local Counsel for Plantiffs.

Below are links to expert testimony provided on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant.

This is an important case as it could be precedent setting.

Click below for links to testimony.

On behalf of Plaintiff:

1.  Barry Trower:  Amended Declaration; Addendum A.

2.  Curtis Bennett:  Second Amended Declaration.

3.  Dr. David Carpenter:  Amended Declaration.

4.  Lloyd Morgan:  Amended Declaration; Addendum E–Poster Re-evaluation of the INTERPHONE Study, Addendum F–Poster Exposure Limits; Addendum G–Poster How Many Brain Tumors; Addendum H–Poster Incidence Rate Model; Addendum I–Brain Tumors in Children.

5.  Dr. Magda Havas:  Declaration; Addendum A–Studies; Addendum B–Boston Petition; Addendum C–International Appeals; Addendum D–Presentation.

6.  Second Amended Complaint

On behalf of Defendant

7.  Dr. David Savitz:  Declaration.

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.

December 4, 2011. A growing number of schools are having wireless routers installed across North America despite the fact that many of these schools already have ethernet connections and students are able to access the internet.

I have been asked to give lectures on this topic to many different groups. For those who would like information about Wi-Fi in schools and whether or not it is safe, please watch this video. Click here for video and here for pdf.

Some students, in schools with Wi-Fi, are complaining about ill health that includes headaches, dizziness, nausea, weakness and heart palpitations. Exposure in one school has exceeded Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guideline but no one in Municipal, Provincial or Federal Health Departments/Ministries is responding.

Teachers concerned about exposure are told to keep quiet and not to speak publicly against School Board Policy.

Parents don’t know if their children are attending schools that have wireless routers as they have NOT been consulted about this and are NOT required to give consent for their children to be exposed to microwave radiation.

Some School Boards are measuring the microwave radiation in the classroom but the measurements are deeply flawed as those doing the monitoring are unqualified and are taking measurements inappropriately. The routers in some schools are hidden behind ceiling tiles and the technicians don’t know where these are.

We are heading for a health tsunami if we expose young children to pulsed microwave radiation generated by Wi-Fi routers in the classroom for the duration of their school education.

The World Health Organization in May 2011 classified this form of radiation as a possible human carcinogen, but this has not affected School Board policy. They can’t get Wi-Fi into schools fast enough.

Those of us who have been studying this issue for decades are perplexed that those responsible for the education of the next generation are so out of touch with reality and are so irresponsible in the decisions they are making that will affect the lives of many young people and their teachers. They are undemocratic in their conduct and, when all else fails, they resort to bullying tactics.  Are these the type of people we want making policy decisions and educating our children and grandchildren?

If you care about the health of students and their teachers, please watch and share this video.  Click here to watch video and click here if your prefer to read it as a pdf.

For more information about Wi-Fi in schools, visit the following websites:

www.safeschool.ca
www.citizensforsafetechnology.org
www.centerforsaferwireless.org
www.emfeffectsonkids.com
www.wiredchild.org

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.

September 9, 2011.  Another school has decided not to play Russian roulette with the health of students and staff.

Pretty River Academy, a private school in Collingwood, Ontario, with 150 students attending kindergarten to Grade 12 replaced wireless internet access (Wi-Fi) with wired ethernet before the start of the 2011 academic year.

This school follows in the footsteps of other schools that have replaced Wi-Fi or that refused to have it installed in the first place.

Students and teachers were encouraged to do research on the best technology for the school and they decided wired internet access was superior to wireless for all sorts of reasons, including health issues.

According to CTV news,

Principal Roberta Murray-Hirst says the new hard-wired Internet system is actually faster than their previous system and gives teachers control over when students can go online.

Murray-Hirst said they did not receive any complaints from students or parents about health concerns but decided to take the precaution anyway.

“We like to be proactive and obviously safety is always a concern,” she said.

Andy Oudman and Pam Killeen (1290 AM CJBK in London, Ontario) interviewed Principal Roberta Murray-Hirst.  Click here to listen to interview.

The Elementary Teachers of Ontario (ETFO) at their AGM in August 2011 in Toronto resolved to further investigate/research the issue of Wi-Fi in schools at the provincial executive level due to increasing concern by the ETFO members themselves throughout Ontario. This concern about Wi-Fi in the schools was brought forward by a resolution made by teachers from the Niagara Board.

One local teacher told me that,

“Teachers and parents were not consulted when the Ontario Board of Education decided to install Wi-Fi in public schools.  Since concerns were raised about Wi-Fi routers, these routers are installed/concealed behind ceiling tiles so that no one knows where there are.

Routers are turned on 24/7 even in primary classrooms where computers are not extensively used (if at all) and even though most students in both the elementary and secondary schools do not even have access to their own computers or Board owned computers. Boards do not permit routers to be turned on/off as needed for a particular lesson to reduce the radiation.

Boards do not even acknowledge that there is radiation being emitted from Wi-Fi devices nor do they measure or monitor radiation. Boards do not even acknowledge that RF radiation is causing health concerns nor do they accommodate staff who complain that RF is making them feel unwell.

Teachers have been prevented from sharing information with their colleagues about RF radiation by their Boards who tell them not to speak about it. Teachers are made to understand that working in a radiation toxic environment is part of the terms of their employment.”

In a Global 16:9 expose last year, Carolyn Jarvis interviewed students at a Collingwood school who complained of headaches, heart racing, nausea, weakness, tremors, insomnia, rashes that go away on the weekends or when the students are not in school. Click here to watch program.

One student says, he used to love school but now things have changed.  He goes on to say that “they” won’t listen to us kids with “they” being the senior school administrators. Is this the message we want to give kids, that their opinions don’t matter and that their health is irrelevant when it comes to 21st Century Technology?

The Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA) presents some guiding principles about how to deal with carcinogens in Ontario.  This applies to the radio frequency radiation generated by Wi-Fi, which the WHO classified as a possible human carcinogen.   Click here for OPHA pdf.  These guiding principles include:

Guiding Principles

Identifiable groups that are vulnerable to environmental carcinogens include, but are not limited to, pregnant women and the unborn, seniors, children and Aboriginals. Standards of safety are needed to account for the greater vulnerability of some groups to environmental carcinogens.

The precautionary principle, which states that action to reduce risk should not wait for scientific certainty, should be adopted in relation to environmental carcinogens.

Carcinogen use reduction planning should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple pollutants, and aggregate carcinogen exposure.

Wherever possible, the creation of pollutants or waste should be avoided or minimized.

Despite this,  Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health said wireless Internet posed no threat to children at schools and Health Canada insists Wi-Fi is not a big cause for concern.

“As long as RF energy levels remain below Health Canada’s RF safety guidelines, current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from Wi-Fi devices are not harmful,” the department said in a statement Thursday.” Click here to read article by Kristy Kirkup in the Toronto Sun.

I find it fascinating that the public school system promotes Wi-Fi, refuses to listen to parents, silences teachers, ignores the research, and can’t get Wi-Fi installed fast enough, even though many of these schools already have a wired system, so the Wi-Fi is redundant. It seems that they were allotted money for this (money that can’t be used for anything else) and every school is following like sheep to the slaughter.

Several private schools, in contrast, are either not installing Wi-Fi or are removing it because of health concerns. This is true not only in North America but also in Europe.  I certainly know which school I would want my children to attend. It is a no brainer.

I expect these private schools are also teaching their students to think independently, to question authority, to believe in their own convictions and not be lead down the garden path. If public schools are teaching independent thinking, they are certainly not walking their talk.

School Boards are demanding that their decision not be challenged and the jobs of principals and teachers are at stake if they request that they be able to turn off the base station signal when it is not being used.  This type of tyranny is simple not acceptable in our Canadian education system.

Who is behind this push to make all schools in North America wireless?  Why the rush?  Where is the money coming from and who is getting paid?  Why can schools NOT opt out of Wi-Fi in favor of ethernet?  How many sick kids are needed before the Ontario Medical Officer of Health and Health Canada will listen to the people and to the scientists?  Why is there no choice and why is open debate stifled?

A group called the Safe Schools Committee continues to push for a ban of Wi-Fi and wants to minimize children’s exposure to radio frequency radiation.

For more information visit:

www.safeschool.ca
www.citizensforsafetechnology.org
www.emfeffectsonkids.com
www.microwavenews.com
www.momsforsafewireless.org
www.weepinitiative.org
www.wiredchild.org

July 1, 2011.  Health Canada seems to be confused about the recent WHO/IARC classification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a “possible human carcinogen.”

Ms Beth Pieterson (Director General, Environment and Radiation Health Services Directorate, Health Canada) stated, “We don’t know the long-term effects of Wi-Fi … From all evidence we have today, there is no evidence based on international experts telling us that there is a cause for concern from exposure to Wi-Fi.”

But didn’t we just hear from the World Health Organization that radio frequency radiation is a “possible human carcinogen”?

“Health Canada says the classification doesn’t include wireless.” But the Chair of the Committee that reviewed the research disagrees with Ms Pieterson.

Dr. Johnathan Samet stated in an email to reporter Kristy Kirkup, ”The classification covers radio frequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include wireless.”

This classificaiton includes not only mobile phones but Wi-Fi, wireless baby monitors, wireless smart meters, cell phone antennas, broadcast antennas, radar antennas, weather antennas, satellite communications, and other wireless devices that use radio frequency radiation to transmit information.

Saying that, “radio frequency radiation is possibly harmful but Wi-Fi is safe” is like saying, “lead in paint is harmful but lead in gasoline is safe,”  or that, “mercury in fish is harmful but mercury in dental amalgam is safe!”

Why is it that pharmaceuticals require extensive testing before drugs are released on the market but wireless technology is exempt from this type of testing?

Why is it that pharmacies keep a record to ensure that people don’t mix the “wrong medications,” but being exposed to multiple types of radio frequency radiation is OK?

Why is it that children are given “children’s aspirin” but are able to be exposed to “industrial strength Wi-Fi” in schools?

Why is it that school boards are ignoring the wishes of parents and are unwilling to provide a choice so that some kids can connect to the internet with wires rather than radio frequencies flowing through the air and through their bodies?

Health agencies do not require “conclusive evidence” to act in a “precautionary” way. Why is Health Canada protecting the wireless industry instead of the health of Canadians?

At the end of the article Ms Pieterson said, “Canada certainly supports WHO recommendations and the findings of IARC.”  Does that mean that Health Canada will now do something about radio frequency radiation in Canada or are we still waiting for “conclusive evidence?”

Read article:  Kristy Kirkup, July 1, 2011.
Wi-Fi dispute continues to raise concerns

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 10, 2011.   The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) is having a public meeting regarding WiFi in schools but only a few select individuals are allowed to present.  Individuals who oppose WiFi installations, in favor of wired installations, are not allowed to present.

I asked to be a presenter but was not given permission despite the fact that new information from various organizations has been recently made available and that I have scientific expertise regarding the health effects of radio frequency radiation.  I was told ” this is not a debate”.

The School Board approved having WiFi installed in KPRD schools earlier this year, despite the fact that parents and others presented evidence that this form of radiation may not be safe and that it was better to err on the side of caution.  Medical Doctors (David Carpenter and Stephen Sinatra) wrote to the school board stating this radiation was not safe.

The recent (May 31, 2011) World Health Organization reclassification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (which includes WiFi radiation) as a “possible human carcinogen” is being ignored.

The recent recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe (Canada has observer status) that “for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises” is being ignored.

Studies at Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) and elsewhere, which show that this radiation (from cell phone and wireless computers) affects sperm quality and may adversely affect reproduction, is being ignored.

Parents are silenced.  Trustees are not returning calls.  Teachers have been disciplined for questioning school board policy.  Teachers who are sensitive to this radiation fear that they will not be able to continue teaching once the WiFi routers are activated.

We asked that wired internet access be used (indeed this is already present at many schools).  But this request was ignored.

If WiFi is installed, we asked that the system be designed so that:

1. WiFi routers can be turned off when not in use;
2. WiFi-free areas be established in schools; and
3. Students-whose parents do not want them exposed-be allowed to use wired computers for internet access. While this would not eliminate their exposure it would reduce it since the highest levels of radiation are near the computers.

We have yet to hear if any of these recommendations are being seriously considered.

We are told that the level of radiation from WiFi in classrooms is so low it can’t possibly have any health effects. Yet, levels of radiation at a school in Collingwood exceeded the Safety Code 6 Guidelines in one classroom nearest the computer!  Click here for this report.  Clearly those making such statements about how low levels are and that they can’t possibly have biological effects are unfamiliar with the research.

As I scientist, who knows how harmful this radiation is, it is impossible for me to remain silent. If it weren’t for the children, I would walk away from this, allow the school board to install WiFi and then document the changes over time.  Some children will remain unaffected but some will become ill immediately and others will become ill over a period of time.  How many will develop cancer and have reproductive problems only time will tell.  The same will happen to teachers.  The question is no longer “if this will happen” but rather “how many will be adversely affected and how quickly”.

No University Ethic Board in North America would grant permission for this type of research (i.e. to expose children, grades K to 12, to low level microwave radiation for hours each day for 13 years and to study the biological effects).  And while schools and libraries in other parts of the world are removing WiFi, the KPRD School Board is going ahead with this experiment despite International Authorities recommending otherwise.

We exposed children to lead, to asbestos, to DDT, to second hand smoke before we realized this exposure was harmful.  Now toys from China with lead paint are returned and make headline news!  Yet we are willing to expose children to microwave radiation in the classroom AFTER we are told this radiation is unsafe at levels below existing federal and international guidelines.  This is willful ignorance and has legal implications.

In a recent letter I sent to Ms Diane Lloyd, Chair KPRD School Board, I shared with her three of my favorite quotes.  I provide them here.

Those of you who are reading this message, please do not let this happen in your community.  Children are precious.  As adults it is our responsibility to protect them.

Minimizing microwave and radio frequency radiation in schools is essential and that means preventing or regulating the use if WiFi and other types of wireless technology inside school buildings and ensuring that antennas (broadcast, radar, cell phone, WiMax) are placed  as far away from school property as possible.

Reducing exposure in the home is equally important.  Sources in the home include cordless phones, cell phones, wireless baby monitors, WiFi and smart meters (electricity, water, gas).  Sources external to the home include nearby antennas and wireless devices used by your neighbors.

June 6, 2011. We don’t tolerate bullying in the schoolyard so why do we tolerate it in the school board?  Teachers who are questioning the roll out of WiFi in schools across Ontario, those who are electrically sensitive and worry about what effect this will have on their health, and those who are concerned about the effect it may have on their students are being silenced.

Principals have told several teachers that they are not to mention or to participate in any action that questions the Board’s decision about WiFi.  Messages posted on bulletin boards in the school have been removed.  Teachers have been reprimanded and threatened.

Parents are being silenced.  Schools refuse to inform parents about when WiFi will be activated in their children’s school.  Parents are forbidden to take their own measurements in schools that currently have WiFi or are scheduled for WiFi.  They are unable to send flyers home to other parents to ask if parents agree with the Board’s decisions about WiFi in the classroom.

Even without the May 31^st 2011 announcement by the World Health Organization that radio frequency radiation (the type of radiation generated by WiFi) may cause cancer, this type of behavior of school boards is totally unacceptable.

When did schools get the right to expose children to potential carcinogens without the consent of their parent?  When did schools get the right to threaten teachers who question their policies?  When did we develop such an intolerant system that is more common in fascist regimes than in democratic societies?

Unfortunately those who are making decisions are ignorant of the technology and ignorant of the science that documents the adverse effects of radio frequency radiation generated by wireless routers.  Back in the late 1980s we were concerned about the lack of science literacy among our students. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the consequences when those in positions of authority do not understand the science upon which their decisions are based, decisions that affect the lives of so many.

This ignorance coupled with bullying is unacceptable and urgently needs to be addressed.

***

The same day the above letter appeared in the Peterborough Examiner (Jun 6, 2011), I received an email from  Diane Lloyd, Chairperson, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, denying me the right to speak at a public meeting scheduled for June 27th in Peterborough at Queen Mary Public School. The board is allowing those who have the same view as the school board to speak but not those who have dissenting views and who believe that the microwave radiation generated by WiFi is harmful to students and their teachers.   They are allowing other professors from Trent University to speak as well as the Medical Officer of Health, who has often voiced her lack of concern about this radiation in the classroom.  Ms Lloyd writes, “This meeting is being held to outline what our technology plan is and to respond to those questions . . . it is not a debate.”

What is so unfortunate is that many of the schools already have wired internet access and Peterborough has fiber optics in the community, yet the school board is “dead set” on installing WiFi irrespective of how the radiation may affect students and staff!  Introducing WiFi into schools that already have wired connections is a waste of money that could be better spent.  But much more important than this is the unnecessary exposure of students and staff to microwave radiation.  Only time will tell how this radiation will affect their health, their behavior, their ability to learn, and their ability to reproduce.

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.