Sunday, May 9, 2010

Response to article / Response to comments / New cancer report / Fascinating news / MORE Dangerous / New condition / Health Zone / Report energizes activists

W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

10 May 2010

Steve Anderson
National Coordinator

Dear Steve:

This is a very belated response to your article in the March 2009 issue of Common Ground magazine, which I only discovered when looking at some back issues.  The timing is perfect, though: debate opened last month in the Canadian Parliament on the matter of mobile i.e. wireless communication.

However, this Parliamentary debate focuses not on the Utopian vision of digitally-connected Canadians presented in your article, but on the hazards to population health from the microwave radiation that powers mobile communications.  Regardless of Canada's official all-is-well policy on cellphone use and the pervasiveness of wifi, strong evidence of the reality of those hazards has been available for years.  Canada continues to become the kind of "mobile" society you espouse, while other countries heed the warnings of scientists and medical researchers by acting on the precautionary principle (see below).

The proven dangers to a mobile-dependent society have been amply reported by the very magazine that published your article.  In fact, given Common Ground's coverage of, for example, Dr. George Carlo's findings, and its stance as a purported defender of ecological and population health, I was very surprised to see your point of view expressed so ardently in its pages.  I have copied this message to its editor.   I have also copied it to the directors of Citizens for Safe Technology ( and WEEP, the Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless, Electric and Electromagnetic Pollution (, two organizations of infinitely greater service to Canadians and the safeguarding of democracy.

What is democratic about encouraging a dependence on a form of technology without informing people of the proven, unavoidable dangers of its use?

You begin your article by lauding Canadians' use of the "tiny devices in their pocket", and stating, "ubiquitous access to each other creates possibilities that are worth fighting for and saving." 

You urge politicians and policy makers to "develop a digital strategy for Canada with a central focus on mobile communications."    Referring to the public's dissatisfaction with comparatively high costs for Canadians to use cellphones, you state that, "If this public opinion can be harnessed to an intervention in the government's digital strategy policy, Canada's wireless market could take a 180 degree turn."

This is exactly the dream of the wireless industry flacks whose unacceptable  -- and undemocratic -- relationship with Industry Canada has been obvious to intelligent Canadians for some time.  I direct you to the submission to Parliament, below, by Dr. Magda Havas ( ), and to reports on the experience of New Denver, BC residents who, as unwilling hosts of a cellphone mast, have experienced first-hand the steamrollering of true democratic process.  New Denver is merely one example of the present disgraceful relationship between the wireless industry and Canada's government.

You envision, as a result of unhindered access to and use of those "tiny devices", "a new era of connectedness, and with it, dramatic changes to social practices and institutions . . . empowerment, job creation and new forms of entrepreneurialism, expression and social change."  In the urgent matter of microwave radiation's consequences for us all, such talk is meaningless gloss over an increasingly frightening reality.   It is to be expected from those who are paid by industry or government (or both) to churn out pie-in-the-sky on dubious "initiatives" intended to improve our lives while improving profits in certain quarters.   But someone who claims to support democracy should not be spouting advertising copywriters' fluff.

The real defenses and advances of democracy in human history -- yes, genuine "dramatic changes to social practices and institutions" and all that is concomitant with them -- were achieved without any of the devices you deem essential to our future.  They were often achieved as a result of solitary individuals taking a stand in the most basic ways and thereby affecting the perceptions, beliefs and actions of many people.   They were based on principles of human rights.

The Parliamentary submission included below will show you that the basic human rights of anyone afflicted with electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) are compromised everywhere they go (or cannot go now).  "Empowerment" has been reduced to a terrible, ironic pun for them.  EHS renders the idea of democratic access null and void, a complete mockery of the right of all Canadians to move freely in their own country and use the facilities available, whether provided by a democratic government or private enterprise.

What is truly "worth fighting for and saving"?  It is worth fighting to save our lives from being irreversibly affected by the levels of microwave radiation that would power your ideal society.

Enough information has been available for a long time now to show that going mobile will eventually leave society stuck in some appalling ruts.  By urging on the blanketing of our world with microwave radiation, certain individuals and organizations will inexorably find themselves on the wrong side of history.  Are you aware of the safe and superior (in terms of security, reliability and data capacity) qualities of fibre-optic technology, which exists right now as an alternative?

People can say, "I didn't know" for as long as the true state of affairs is completely hidden or unknown.  Once the information is out there for all to see and judge -- as it is now and has been for so long -- they must choose either "I know and therefore I will act on the truth" (whether out of personal or collective responsibility) or "I know, but I choose not to believe or act."   But it is not possible to jump back to the other side of history, the "I didn't know" side, when the questioning starts -- and when ethics and accountability demand answers.  Between the two sides of history is the abyss of continuing indulgence in frenzied, frivolous use of a powerful and not wholly understood technology, despite undeniable evidence of its serious consequences.

I urge you to start educating yourself.  Perhaps Open Media would then direct its attention toward incidents in which independent investigation and reporting of these concerns have been stifled because media are either beholden to telecom advertising revenue or influenced in other, stronger ways.

Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Delnavine
White Rock, BC

Dear  Ms. Murray,

In the HESA meetings of April 27 and 29 on microwave radiation and health, two very important points were overlooked.  One concerned the real significance of the BioInitiative Report.  The other concerned the bogus argument of "weight of evidence."

The people representing Health Canada and the status quo, Dr. Muc, Mr. Rowley, Dr. Habash, and Beth Pieterson each made derogatory remarks about the BioInitiative Report.  What they did is, first, to misrepresent it and, then, to attack it for being what they claimed it to be.  Let's set the record straight.

The BioInitiative Report is a compilation of more than 2000 studies. Over 6 years 14 well-respected scientists, one of whom was Dr. Olle Johansson, spent time reviewing, testing, and researching studies done by many other scientists during the last 20 years or more. Each of these 2000 studies had been peer-reviewed on its own and its merits had been decided before being included in this larger report.

The comments made at the meeting suggested that the report was to be disregarded because it had not included all studies and that the people making the final arguments were not unbiased. But the point of the BioInitiative Report was not to include all studies.  Rather, it was to answer charges made by Health Canada, the World Health Organization, ICNIRP, CWTA, FCC, etc. that "There is no evidence of harm at radiation levels below Safety Code 6." The scientists and researchers who wrote the BioInitiative Report knew this not to be true because they had done research showing the contrary. And so had many others.

The BioInitiative Report, then, is a compilation of evidence that counters the charge that no evidence exists.  That is it.  No more, no less.

And now to the bogus "weight of evidence" argument.  Health Canada uses this strategem in an attempt to show that because there are, purportedly, more studies showing no harm than there are showing harm, the ones showing harm don't count and should not be considered.  Setting aside the collusion that exists between Health Canada and the wireless industry that my husband and I documented in our Auditor General's report of 2008 and which questions the reliability of those studies upon which Health Canada depends, what really matters is if studies showing harm can be replicated. Until there is an attempt at replication and the results differ and those differences are explained, no legitimate argument as to the reliability of the studies can be made.

The negative studies, those showing harmful effects, need to be made public. Too often funding and lack of publication due to industry pressure has resulted in biased results, like Safety Code 6. That was the raison d'etre for the BioInitiative Report, to shed the light of independent science on a topic which has been ignored or hidden by the powers that be.

Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC

Pushback begins against new cancer report

By Susan Perry | Published Fri, May 7 2010 9:38 am

The pushback to this year's President's Cancer Panel report published Thursday has already started.

(Note the criticism of the American Cancer Society)

There has been lots of fascinating news lately.
Dr. Joe Harrop
Updated: 05/08/2010

There was an interesting non-alarmist commentary by Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz of the University of California Center for Family and Community Health in Berkeley.

Moskowitz cited 13 high quality scientific studies investigating the long term use of cell phones and brain tumors. The studies found "a significant harmful association with tumor risk" for those who had used cell phones for ten years or longer. He suggested improving the FCC standards for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), "a measure of heat generated by six minutes of cell phone exposure."

Whether his recommendation will set off a series of denials and conspiracy theories is yet to be seen, but I am sure it will be a long time before the SAR standards are upgraded.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company is under fire for trying to downsize its workforce by eliminating meter readers and replacing them with so-called "smart meters." At this point there are over 1,000 formal complaints on file because the meters seem to be overcharging customers. Of course the matter is being "looked into" by the proper authorities.
Are Cellphones MORE Dangerous Than Cigarettes?

by Morgan on May 8, 2010

There was a time when the cigarette companies said with confidence that cigarettes weren't bad for your health. With no scientific proof people believed them – until people started dying and evidence started-coming out showing that cigarettes were indeed hazardous to your health.

However – before the cover was blown you'd sound like a crazy person trying to convince smokers that it was dangerous. In fact you could probably expect to hear the following response, "the companies that make cigarettes say they are perfectly safe…do you really think they would put so many lives at risk?"

Well we all know they did and I'm getting more and more confident that cellphones will replace cigarettes as the silent killer of our generation.

Of course nobody wants to believe that their cellphone could cause brain tumors so it's easier to use the same excuse, "the companies that make cellphones say they are perfectly safe…do you reall think they would put so many lives at risk?"

Sound familiar?

Well as more and more reports of cellphone-related tumors come-out the evidence is starting to become hard to ignore. GQ recently ran an article in which they interviewed a finance guy in his 30's who had developed a brain tumor due to cellphone use. He also knew of multiple people within his own company that had died of a brain tumor…coincidence? You be the judge!

Before you comment on this post I highly encourage you to read the following article:

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

If you're too lazy to read the article – then just read the first four paragraphs. What you will read is what I see as the very beginning of what will become a global problem over the next ten years.

With many smartphones emitting close to the legal limit of radiation (measured by the SAR rating) Apple's latest phenomenon could become the silent killer of the future.

I've been worried about cellphone radiation for some time now and as a result speak almost exclusively on speakerphone – and no I don't have one of those trendy bluetooth headsets that I see people wearing 24/7!

So now you tell me – does this concern you at all or do you think these HUGE companies that are making money hand-over-fist and are heavily protected by the FCC might actually be creating devices more dangerous than cigarettes? Heck – finance guys in their 30's who smoke cigarettes almost never get lung cancer until later in life…but brain tumors in your mid-30's, and multiple people in the same firm? This is more than a coincidence – this is a problem and we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Charles

I'd like to propose a new condition into the medical lexicon:

Cellphonophobia – the fear that using a cell phone causes bodily harm, usually associated with avoidant behaviors that equate electromagnetic radiation with contagion.

Comment from a reader

I think the analogy is good about living under power lines. there are probably dozens of mildly toxic everyday contributers to cancer in the world today including cell phone use. it's hard to avoid most of them, including eating seafood, (mercury) most vegetables, (pesticides) etc. etc. — in general, the key thing to note in the cell phone debate is that much of the "science" out there has been funded by the companies who profit directly from the cell phone industry. I don't think that most people are comfortable standing next to the microwave when it's on, and i feel the same way about frequent, long conversations on my cell phone.

I have a friend who is a business owner who spent hours a day on his cell phone until they discovered a massive brain tumor behind his left ear. (where he would rest the phone) it could be a coincidence, but to me it looks like his cell phone use may have increased his odds of getting the tumor.

The bottom line is that no matter what the various scientific data says, intuition should still help us make our own decisions.
  -  - EHS Refuge Zone Health Zone - Zone Santé: Marathon 09 05 2010 (report-reportage)

Cancer report energizes activists, not policy

Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

Sun May 9, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cancer report that concludes Americans are under constant assault from carcinogenic agents has heartened activists, who hope that finally government and policymakers will pay attention to their concerns.


But the report from the President's Cancer Panel on Thursday has underwhelmed most mainstream cancer experts and drawn only a puzzled response from the White House. Even members of Congress who usually are eager to show they are fighting to protect the public have been mostly silent.

Cancer experts say for the most part that we already know what causes most cases of cancer and it's not pollution or chemicals lurking in our water bottles. It's tobacco use and other unhealthy behaviors, says Dr. Graham Colditz of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

"The lack of physical activity, weight gain, obesity clearly account for 20 percent or more of cancer in the United States today," Colditz said in a telephone interview.

The report, he said, gives people an excuse to ignore the risk factors most in their control.

"The damage is that it distracts us, as a society, from actually acting on the things that are already in our grasp. I can take tobacco as the best example," said Colditz, noting that more than 20 percent of Americans still smoke despite nearly 50 years of cancer warnings.

And no state has even come close to banning smoking, although limits are going into place to restrict smoking in public.

"We know that alcohol causes 4 percent (of cancers) and we deal with that to too little extent, as well," said Colditz, an expert in the epidemiology of cancer. Red meat is a known cause of colon cancer, he adds. "We don't run out and ban all beef just because beef is a cause of colon cancer."


So it worries Colditz to see the two-member cancer panel -- Dr. LaSalle Leffall, professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and Margaret Kripke, an emeritus professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center -- recommend sweeping policy changes to focus on potential environmental causes of cancer.

"Maybe up to 4 percent of cancer in the western world is caused by contaminants and pollution and yet we are chasing new, unknown causes rather that focusing on acting on what we know," he said. "Things like this report are making it harder to move the nation to a healthier lifestyle."

Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an activist group that conducts research into environmental health questions, disagrees with the assessment that chemical causes of cancer are only in the single digits.

"As this prestigious body's report underscores, the federal government has failed to take aggressive action to protect people from chemicals that cause cancer," Cook said in a statement.

Cook hopes the report will prompt changes. "The tide is shifting, thanks to irrefutable scientific research and a strengthening of political will in Washington."

But one government researcher, who asks not to be named, doubts it. "In the past the President's Cancer Panel has not had much impact," the researcher said.

The panel was set up in 1971 as part of then-President Richard Nixon's "war on cancer." It calls for more research into the potential chemical and environmental causes of cancer, including mobile phones and a plastic ingredient called BPA.

Such research is already under way and the agencies conducting it say it will take years and studying many thousands of people to tease out potential cancer signals.

One big problem -- people are soaked in chemicals, electromagnetic radiation, hormones and other known causes of cancer that can interact with thousands of genetic variations to start tumors growing -- or not. Figuring out whether any one ingredient is mutating a gene or set of genes in a certain way will be difficult.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a program to test 5,000 people each year for dozens of chemicals and to collate a database over time.

And last month researchers launched a giant study to track at least 250,000 people in five European countries for up to 30 years to see if there are any health effects from using mobile telephones.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Previously submitted, but this time with working links (hopefully)

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)

Web site   


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