Friday, May 7, 2010

ELECTROMAGNETISM & LIFE / HESA / HESA Audio / Change in Tack / the Link / Consumers Worried

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

8 May 2010


By Robert O. Becker and Andrew A. Marino

Important E-Book by two leading EMR researchers -

Excerpt - 'In a Canadian study it was found that, prior to commencement of employment, the 56 high-voltage workers studied had fathered approximately equal numbers of male and female offspring, but that in children conceived thereafter, the number of males born was almost six times the number of females (67)'.


Dear Members of HESA,

For several years I have been sending scientific studies to the Minister of Health, and members of Health Canada in an effort to have Safety Code 6 reviewed. I always receive the same letter back which says that Health Canada has reviewed all evidence and has concluded that there is no evidence that Safety Code 6 is outdated or inadequate; that all evidence shows that there is no harm at levels below that permitted by Safety Code 6. This despite directors of Health Canada, including Beth Pieterson, having committed to making revisions should any evidence of harm be presented.

Below is one of many submissions I've made, this with 5 studies showing cellular and genetic damage due to exposure to radiation at very low levels of radiation which are mere fractions of those currently allowed. As you can also see, I have copied various people at different levels in Health Canada and well as the Auditor General's department, asking for someone to take this information seriously. Sadly no one has.

As time passes, more people are becoming exposed to very high levels of this pollutant. What is especially distressing is that when I and others who are concerned try to raise the issue with groups such as school boards and hospitals, they contact Health Canada and are told that there is no danger.

Therefore, no precautions are taken such as removing WiFi from classrooms or transmitters from rooftops. Not only is Health Canada not protecting its citizens but it is preventing them from taking steps to protect themselves. It does appear that there is no reason for Health Canada except to give us a false sense of security.

Please consider the evidence presented last week from independent experts and that from other experts which I am forwarding below. We ask that Canadians, especially our children, at least be given the same level of protection from radiation as people in other countries.


Sharon Noble

The Minister of Health for Canada

Dear Madam Minister,

Last week I sent you the following along with 3 studies concerning the Blood Brain Barrier :

"In June, 2008,  I submitted a petition to the Auditor General charging Health Canada with failure to acknowledge independently funded scientific research which, by and large, shows harm from electromagnetic radiation at levels drastically below those allowed by Safety Code 6. I asked for answers, which I did not receive, to explain why many other developed countries, like Sweden, France, Italy, Russia and even China have much stricter guidelines which restrict exposures to 1% of what is allowed by Canada's. The respondent for Health Canada stated, in November 2008, that if/when credible studies are provided, immediate revision of Safety Code 6 would be made, and kept reiterating that there is no evidence of harm from levels of exposures permitted by the code."

Following are 5 more studies demonstrating severe, consistent and irreversible damage to DNA after exposure to electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal levels. Safety Code 6 does not protect against non-thermal radiation, only thermal. Health Canada maintains there are no "credible" health effects at the non-thermal level. Please look at these studies done by independent, non-industry-funded scientists. 

1) REFLEX Report, (December 2004) Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods, A project funded by the European Union under the programme "Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources" .

"Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in- vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people."

2) Diem et al [2005] exposed human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to mobile phone signal (1800 MHz; SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg; different modulations; during 4, 16 and 24 h; intermittent 5 min on/10min off or continuous). RFR exposure induced DNA single and double-strand breaks as measured by the comet assay. Effects occurred after 16 h exposure in both cell types and after different mobile-phone modulations. The intermittent exposure showed a stronger effect than in the continuous exposure.

3) Paulraj and Behari [2006] reported an increase in single strand breaks in brain cells of rats after 35 days of exposure to 2.45 and 16.5 GHz fields at 1 and 2.01 W/kg.

4) Phillips et al. [1998] found increase and decrease in DNA strand breaks in cells exposure to various forms of cell phone radiation.

5) Sun et al. [2006] reported an increase in DNA single strand breaks in human lens epithelial cells after 2 hrs of exposure to 1.8 GHz field at 3 and 4 W/kg. The DNA damages caused by 4 W/kg field were irreversible.

Madam Minister, this makes a total of 8 studies I have sent you over the last couple of weeks all of which show harmful effects from non-thermal radiation. I urge you to send this data to an independent researcher/scientist, one not in Health Canada which has become infamous for its affiliations with the industries it monitors. Please send it to someone who has no connection to the telecommunication industry, either indirectly (using industry journals to publish "studies" to further his/her career) or directly and ask for an objective opinion. If you need references I would be happy to provide a list of names. If you want more studies, tell me how many are needed, 20? 100? 1000? I've got them.

Many people who have worked for Health Canada in various areas have described it as being corrupt, corrupt to the core (as per Shiv Chopra). It is time for this department to be cleansed for the sake of the Canadian public.

I dare Health Canada to look at its commitment to me to amend Safety Code 6 if I provided one credible and to tell me in writing that there is no credibility to any of the studies I've provided.

Failing that, I dare Health Canada to tell me there isn't enough evidence in the 8 studies I've provided so far to invoke the Precautionary Principle, the true Precautionary Principle, not the one that refers to cost implications and risk assessment. The one that says: "When an activity raises threats to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically." If Health Canada will not follow its mandate and protect our children and families as it should, and as other countries have, then Health Canada has no reason for being. That department should be done away with. Currently Health Canada is a farce, and a dangerous one at that. It is your job, Madam Minister, to end what has been happening for far too long -- either bring in reliable, capable, independent people who answer to the Canadian public and not the corporations,  or do away with this department.

Yours truly,

Sharon Noble

Victoria, BC


HESA proceedings

Here are the latest audio files from the House of commons debate

International experts were invited to Ottawa to present information about the health effects of microwave radiation from wireless communication technologies to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA).  The hearing  took place on April 27 and 29, 2010 in Ottawa and among those invited to participate are  Olle Johansson (Sweden), Andrew Goldsworthy (UK), Claude Monnet (, 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.

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)


Opponents of New Cellphone Towers Try a Change in Tack

New York Times

The local scout council has agreed to construction of a cellphone tower on a hill ... broadband Internet antenna at the Walnut Heights Elementary School.


Strengthening the Link Between Pollution, Cancer

Presidential advisory group moves to broaden focus of cancer research to precaution, prevention.

By Valerie Brown May 6, 2010

A new report from a presidential advisory group represents a major advance in the struggle to protect people from exposure to carcinogenic chemicals.

"Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now," issued today by the President's Cancer Panel, announces a shift in emphasis from merely treating cancer to preventing it, and from seeking the roots of cancer in individual DNA to recognizing environmental contaminants as important causes.

Two distinguished cancer doctors appointed by President George W. Bush, LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and Margaret Kripke, professor emerita at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, sit on the panel. A third seat, usually filled by a celebrity like Lance Armstrong, is vacant. The panel itself was established in 1971 under the National Cancer Act.

In a telephone press conference, several environmental health researchers and activists who testified before the panel in the last two years praised it for taking a paradigm-shifting position regarding how cancer research and treatment should be conducted — and how environmental and health policies should reflect current science.

The panel writes that there's quite a lot we can do as individuals and through focused political will. Its cover letter to the president takes a stark and unambiguous position:

"The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. …

"All levels of government, from federal to local, must work to protect every American from needless disease through rigorous regulation of environmental pollutants."

To accomplish this, the report calls explicitly for adopting the precautionary principle, long championed by environmental health advocacy groups. The idea is captured nicely by adages like "first, do no harm" and "look before you leap."

Precaution, says the report, "should be the cornerstone of a new national cancer prevention strategy."

Cancer research has long focused on genetic causes, believed to account for only about 5 percent of cases. The report acknowledges this focus as too narrow and recognizes that environmental contaminants can alter gene activity "without changing the underlying DNA sequences" — in other words, as Miller-McCune has reported previously, epigenetics may have as much or more to do with cancer initiation and progression as genes.

According to Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, the panel started its investigation thinking the connection between cancer and environmental exposures might have been exaggerated by public fears and activist pressure. But Leffall and Kripke developed a "voracious appetite" and reviewed 450 research reports and other documents linking environmental exposures with cancer, Rizzo said.

"When you delve into the science literature, it quickly becomes persuasive," added Julia Brody, director of the Silent Spring Institute, which itself focuses on the link between the environment and breast cancer.

The PCP report also expresses considerable concern about radiation exposure's role in cancer, including ionizing radiation from bomb test fallout, nuclear weapons production, medical testing and depleted uranium, as well as microwave and electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other products. This position may strengthen support for pending legislation expanding compensation to victims of fallout and weapons production radiation exposures.

The delight with the report expressed by environmental health scientists and advocates may reverberate in reverse through the chemical industry, which has long fought tighter restriction of the 80,000-plus industrial chemicals, pesticides and other substances in use in the United States for which very little toxicity testing has been done. For example, the American Council on Science and Health, which is funded by the food and chemical industry, was critical of the report's "homage" to the precautionary principle.

"This so-called Presidential Cancer Panel, which consists of two physicians, has obviously been politically pressured by the activists running the EPA," the group's medical/executive director, Dr. Gilbert Ross, is quoted on its website. "When they mention babies being 'pre-polluted' and the alleged dangers of all of these chemicals, they not only sign their name to activist screeds, they neglect to mention that the dose makes the poison, and that finding traces of chemicals at levels of parts-per-billion does not imply a health hazard. And of course they do not address the potential health hazards of banning important chemicals from consumer products."

However, the PCP report endorses the expanding green chemistry movement as a way to keep the industry viable, as well as changes in the training of chemists so that precaution can be built into chemical processes and products from the beginning.

Sandra Steingraber, author of Living Downstream: An Ecologist's Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment, praised the report for three important findings: reducing the perceived role of genes as the culprit in cancer; that exposures in early life have effects "disproportionate to dose"; and that people are exposed to mixtures of chemicals rather than one at a time, while our testing protocols only capture individual chemicals.

The panel's report "invites us to decide that toxic pollution is archaic and primitive," she added.

The next battle to align policy with science in the war on cancer — and other diseases — will be fought over revision of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act via the Safe Chemicals Act introduced April 19 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.


Consumers Worried About Smart Meters' Health Risks

Friday, 07 May 2010 10:23

The California Public Utilities Commission is being urged to put a moratorium on Pacific Gas & Electric's planned July deployment of smart meters in Fairfax, located just north of San Francisco. The Fairfax town council wants an independent third party to review the smart meter program and also wants the PUC to make participation in the smart meter roll out voluntary, so residents can opt out. Fairfax is located north of San Francisco.

Beyond the questions of accuracy, the Fairfax city fathers have expressed concern over the potential health risks posed by the smart meters' radio transmissions. Mayor Lew Tremaine explains, "The concern is that these things equate to cell phone towers times 10, and that the ambient electromagnetic and radio wave fields that will come as a result of having these things at every house running constantly is an unforeseen health risk. For people who are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, it's going to be a living nightmare."

The Contra Costa Times reported that PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno denied the meters posed a health risk, saying the emitted radio signals are well within limits established by the Federal Communications Commission. "The meters emit a signal once every four hours for a fraction of a second, and at very low power," Moreno said. "These levels are far below what you would find in many common household appliances."

Fairfax and PG&E have a contentious history. The town strongly supports the Marin Clean Energy plan, which competes with PG&E for customers. So residents were already suspect about the smart meter deployment and have been vocal about the perceived increase in their electricity bills.

Moreno countered by saying the increases actually reflect the accuracy of the meters. "In the vast majority of situations, the higher bills can be attributed to increased usage due to seasonal changes, as well as rates being higher than in the previous summer."

The last issue brought up by the Fairfax mayor was the negative impact on employment the smart meters presented. However, PG&E has gone on record saying it's providing job training for its meter readers, of which less than a third are full time employees.

Moreno reported that about 80 percent of meter readers have transitioned to other jobs within the company. "Meter reading has historically been a stepping stone toward other employment at PG&E, although some people do make an entire career out of reading. We've had very good success at helping meter readers interested in staying with the company transition to other jobs."


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