Monday, March 29, 2010

Help Linda Sepp / Maine final vote / Compact fluorescent lamp warnings / Flying and excess radiation

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

30 March 2010

Letter to PM - Help Linda Sepp

(Thanks to all that responded and sent messages to the Prime Minister.   Martin)

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I am writing in support of Mr. Weatherall's efforts to help a woman suffering from hypersensitivity, Linda Sepp. Please consider the following information about this new disease, which is debilitating more and more of our population each year due to exposure to radiation from various wireless devices such as radio and cell transmitters, WiFi, cellphones, etc. Independent scientists have proven that this constant exposure is damaging to most people over a period of time, but a significant proportion of people are like the canary in the mine: they develop sensitivities for all of us to see, showing the results of the dangers we are forced to endure every day.

Recent studies in many countries have indicated that more and more people are suffering from electromagnetic sensitivity. The symptoms are varied and severity ranges from mild to debilitating. Sweden now recognizes this as a disability and more people are going on disability pensions each year.

Sweden, Austria, Germany, United States, Switzerland, England and Ireland participated in studies which indicate an increase in the number of people affected which corresponds to the increase in exposure, through more technological development and wider use of transmitters, such as cell phone towers.

As reported in the journal "Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine", 25:189-191, 2006: 190 Hallberg and Oberfeld Table 1 Estimated prevalence of electrosensitive people in different years and countries Measured % El year sensitive Country, reported year Ref. No.:

1985 0.06%  Sweden 1991 (0.025–0.125%) National Encyclopedia Sw., 1991
1994 0.63%  Sweden 1995 Anonymous est., 1994
1995 1.50%  Austria 1995 Leitgeb N. et al., 1995, 2005
1996 1.50%  Sweden 1998 SNBHW, Env. report, 1998
1997 2.00%  Austria 1998 Leitgeb N. et al., 1998, 2005
1997 1.50%  Sweden 1999 Hillert L. et al., 2002
1998 3.20%  California 2002 Levallois P., 2002
1999 3.10%  Sweden 2001 SValberg PANBHW, Env. report, 2001

2000 3.20%  Sweden 2003 Sw Labour Union Sif, 2003
2001 6.00%  Germany 2002 Schroeder E., 2002
2002 13.30% Austria 2003 (7.6–19%) Spiß B., 2003
2003 8.00%  Germany 2003 Infas, 2003
2003 9.00%  Sweden 2004 Elöverkänsligas Riksförbund, 2005
2003 5.00%  Schweiz 2005 Bern, Medicine Social, 2005
2003 5.00%  Ireland 2005 This is London, 2005
2004 11.00% England 2004 Fox E., 2004
2004 9.00%  Germany 2005 Infas, 2004
2017 50.00% Extrapolated to 50%

EHS - which can be very debilitating - is thought to result from large changes in the immune system caused by continuing exposure to microwave radiation, leading to chronic inflammation and allergic responses. Estimates of EHS vary from 3% to 10% of the population in the UK and other European countries. (The London Resolution, Dec. 3, 2007) Sweden was one of the first countries to adopt wireless technology, therefore they must be regarded as the bellweather for EHS.

Canada did not have the technology and the large number of cell phones as Europe for some time, but it is logical to assume that Canada's exposure is growing at the same rate, and the health complaints are, too. If the pattern continues, soon Canada's pension and health system will not be able to cope.

I ask that you, Mr. Prime Minister, have independent sources investigate this information -- NOT Health Canada, which has already decided to not consider the science which has caused other countries to take action. Electromagnetic exposure levels need to be reviewed and revised based upon biological harm to prevent more Canadians from becoming ill and even dying. Please look at these people who are sensitive and give them help. And recognize what they are telling us -- radiation from wireless technology is making us sick.


Sharon Noble

Victoria, British Columbia


Maine final vote

Dearest People,

Well it was decided by leadership that the minority report be presented for a final vote on the floor in Maine this past Fri. in Maine  Results were...

House, 83-62 in favor of killing the bill

Senate, 20 -15 in favor of killing the bill. 

In other words nothing passed.  However, this is evidently a very close vote for a brand new issue that no one knew very much about except for the awareness that was raised via the hearings and local attention to the bill.  The committee did write the CDC a letter asking that more info on this issue of cell phone radiation be linked to their website.  Exact wording of the letter I do not have but will let you know once I do.  So Maine will be the first state to mandate this from the CDC.  But again, I don't have this letter yet.

The legislator who brought bill, Andrea Boland, is re-submitting it for the 2011 session.  She just has to get re-elected in the interim.  I would comment but being as this is a non profit, we are strictly prohibited from advocating for any political candidates. 

During this time, we have been contacted by other states who see Maine as we do...a huge awareness raising event which only brought us closer to our eminent success in getting a warning label on cell phones. 

We have received numerous requests to post the hearings on the website and will be doing so soon.  Hopefully they will aide in your bringing this bill or others like it to your own state or country.

We are also currently moving forward with warning labels on cell phones at the federal level.  A group of us will be in DC in the month of May for National Brain Tumor Awareness Week, (approx. May 4th - May 11th) lobbying Congress.  There may be a language change in the bill due to our experience in Maine.  I will send it out to you all once it is finalized, but ultimately it will be up to whichever legislator picks the bill up and authors it, to decide upon exact language of the bill. 

Anyone who wants to help out in DC please let us know.  We really could use the help even if you can't personally make it.  Just you setting up meetings with your representatives for us to take while we are there would be enormously helpful.  They respond to their constituents and that is what something like this is going to take.  So please let us know if you can either join us in DC or if you can set up a meeting for us with your Congressman or Senator. 

Thank you so much for your ongoing support.  We need it now more than ever.

With Gratitude and Faith,



Compact fluorescent lamp warnings


Just recently, I translated an article on compact fluorescent lamps and their EMF emissions by Wolfgang Maes, the initiator of the Building Biology Standard. Take a look at the many oscilloscope graphs and spectrum analyses. The huge harmonic distortions and high flicker percentages speak for themselves.

The German branch of the Friends of the Earth (BUND), one of the largest environmental organizations in Germany, issued a background paper on compact fluorescent lamps in 2009 when the incandescent lamp was banned in Europe. The BUND demands that lighting should be safe both for the environment as well as human health.

Their recommendations for exposure limits apply not only to compact fluorescent lamps but all lamp types. Any lamp that cannot meet the TCO limit (VLF: 1 V/m and ELF: 10 V/m at 30 cm) should be taken from the market. And by 2015 lamps should stay below the target threshold of 0.2 V/m in the VLF range. For lamps used close to the body, the BUND suggests a precautionary value of 0.02 V/m. I fully support these recommendations.

Just for the record, Health Canada released data on EMF emissions of CFLs this year. The details on the testing procedures have not been released yet. But for the kHz range (VLF), the worst-case CFL is given with 126 V/m at 20 cm. This is only 45% of the Safety Code 6 exposure limit of 280 V/m, but it is 45% above the ICNIRP exposure limit of 87 V/m. Converting the measurements to a 30-cm distance, the CFL emission level is 56 times higher than the TCO limit of 1 V/m recommended by the Swedish standard on low-emission computer monitors.

For more details on CFL reports by governments (UK, Switzerland), check out my comments at:

More information available at:

With best regards,

Katharina Gustavs,
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN)
Translator German/English (STIBC)

Rainbow Consulting
5237 Mt. Matheson Rd.
Sooke   BC   V9Z 1C4   Canada
Phone: 250-642-2774


Flying and excess radiation

In the aftermath of the foiled "underwear bomber" attack on Christmas day, there's a major push to install whole-body x-ray scanning machines at airport screening areas.

The effort is being led by former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, now a paid consultant for a manufacturer of these x-ray machines. He's calling for their "large-scale deployment." Estimated to cost $3 billion over the next eight years, the Homeland Security department plans to have 1,800 scanners in place at U.S. airports by 2014.

In a Washington Post op-ed on New Year's Day, Chertoff dismissed objections raised about these devices. "The 'safety' concern'" he claimed "is particularly specious, because the technologies expose people to no more radiation than is experienced in daily life."

Not quite. Whole body x-ray scanning machines were developed and first used to detect theft at gold and diamond mines on and inside the bodies of workers in Africa. They are fluoroscopic x-ray machines that provide a real time image of a person's body using "back-scatter" or "soft" X-rays. They emit much less penetrating energy than machines found in a medical setting, such as CAT scanners. However, like all machines, if their design, manufacture, calibration, maintenance are defective, then doses to passengers and security staff could be larger than claimed. The recent reporting of dozens of cases of harm to patients from the misuse of CAT scans should serve as a cautionary warning.

Unfortunately, the doses of radiation experienced in every-day life, especially flying long-distances in jet aircraft, pose risks we should also carefully heed.

The earth's atmosphere is a massive shield protecting life on earth from cosmic radiation. At sea level, this atmospheric radiation shield is roughly equivalent to a wall of water about 33 feet thick. With the rise in altitude, atmospheric shielding decreases and radiation doses increase. At 30,000 feet above sea level, radiation doses increase by 90 times. Solar flares can increase doses by a factor of 100 above that. For this reason, flight crews, are considered by the United Nation's Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation as radiation workers who, because of exposure to cosmic radiation, are the most highly exposed group in the world.

According to UN data, in 2000, air crews made up about 3% of the radiation workers in the world, but received about 24% of the total collective dose for all exposed workers, which include people employed at uranium mines, nuclear weapons sites, and nuclear power plants. The average estimated annual dose to flight personnel, and frequent international flyers such as professional couriers, is about 2.5 times higher than the combined average for all radiation workers.

Aircrew and frequent long-distance passengers are chronically exposed to more biologically damaging forms of radiation, such as neutrons, than the majority of nuclear workers.

Women who are pregnant have a heightened risk of cancer to their embryos. During the early part of the first trimester, when radiation sensitivity is the highest, some women may not know they are pregnant. This is why European airlines ground pregnant aircrew to prevent overexposure.

Over the past decade, at least 11 studies of military and commercial air crews show significant increased risks of dying from cancers considered to be radiogenic. The aircraft environment includes other potential and multiple risk factors which are not as well understood as radiation, such as electromagnetic fields, changes in body hormones, time zone changes, pesticides, pressure changes, chronic fatigue, and life styles.

Given the economic problems airlines face, this problem is the last thing that they want to surface. But, if crew members and passengers already face largely unreported radiation risks from long-distance flying, we should have the right to know just how whole-body radiation scanning machines are part of this risk.

Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department's secretary from 1993 to 1999.

Web site    e-mail

To sign up for WEEP News:  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution