W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
12 February 2011
Texas Smart Meter Petition
Thanks so much. I literally have the biggest migraine right now, I want this meter off my house! I have had headaches since the first day as well as my husband. I have worked nonstop for the past month, writing long letters to state rep, senator, attorney general, congress, with scientific studies of harm with such chronic exposure. I am petitioning door to door, at schools, and grocery stores, signs and flyers everywhere. If there isn't some positive news next week, I'm having a lawsuit. I have been the only one around here who knows anything about thow these meters work and the dangers, so I started informing people and everyone is disturbed over it. I have a hand written petition as well, and now have started this one,
Thanks for all of your work, its a sick world out there!
Blessings, Gracie Bonaparte
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13abc.com
Milham says they're created by the power running through your home, cell phone, and everyday appliances like computers or wireless internet routers. ...
Milham says they're created by the power running through your home, cell phone, and everyday appliances like computers or wireless internet routers. ...
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Business is Concerned
| Does your policyholder lease space to a cell phone company for the placement of an antenna on the side or top of their building? While renting space on their building is very attractive to the building owner with a long-term lease, these antennas could potentially expose any humans who work or even walk near them to harmful radio frequencies that could cause injury. Does your insured warn their workers or third party contractors about this antenna radio frequency exposure? Central's Loss Control Department offers a short recorded webinar to help you understand the potential of radio frequency danger and to offer some suggestions you can give your insureds to avoid possible worker injuries and liability. Click the link below to view the webinar now: Cell Tower Radio Frequency Exposure Liability You may also view the session at your convenience by clicking the link under Recorded Sessions in the Online Training box on the Agents Access home page. If you would like an in house training session with your agency staff, please contact Central's Loss Control Department at 800-767-6430. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Call Me Responsible"
Michelle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wi Fi in Long Term Care Homes
Dear Ms. Pitters and Ms. White,
I received a letter from Ms. White on February 1st, 2011 which stated
that Dr. Arlene King, Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province
of Ontario, issued a statement on September 16th, 2010, stating that
WIFI presents no serious health risks. I believe she is referring to the
OAHPP report. It seems to be on the basis of this report alone that you
have decided to implement wireless technology.
I would like to remind Ms. Pitters that I emailed her twice in November
asking to discuss this report, as there is much to critique in it. In
particular, it seems that the effects of wifi have been compared to
cellphone use, which is odd, considering that cellphones are used a few
minutes a day, while wifi is broadcasting all the time. There is a big
difference between an occasional exposure and a constant exposure. There
are a number of other serious concerns with this report, which does not
in any way justify a conclusion that there are no serious health risks.
In fact, the report states in its own conclusions:
"Research on potential health effects from exposure to RF energy is an
active field of investigation. Not surprisingly there is inconsistency
and in some cases conflict between the results of individual studies.
Given this inconsistency, it is possible to select the results of
individual research studies in support of a variety of opinions; which
may range from no risk of health effects on the one hand, to a clear
need to reduce current exposure limits on the other.
For this reason, up-to-date reviews of literature which follow a weight
of evidence approach are far more useful for informing debate and sound
policy making than reliance on individual studies."
The "weight of evidence" approach has itself been criticized as being
unscientific. (Professor Jerry Phillips recently spoke to CBC about this
- listen to:
http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2011/01/30/egypt-protests---cellphone-radiation---ken-nordine/#socialcomments
. The interview is in the last half of the second hour.) It is far too
easy for people to cherry-pick their studies, and for industry to
manipulate data. There are, however, plenty of good studies showing
harm.
I have sent links to quite a bit of information to Ms. Pitters, but now
have the impression that it was not considered. To impose such a
questionable technology on the people in your care without doing your
own research seems to me rather negligent. You may very well have
ignored "the best advice possible".
But this is not just about serious health risks, it is also about
serious discomforts, such as those suffered by my father. I know dozens
of people who have suffered such discomforts; healthy, robust adults and
children with no other cause for their symptoms. How can you possibly
say that no frail or cognitively impaired seniors will be adversely
affected by wifi?
It is irresponsible in the extreme to go ahead with wifi installation
based on such a poor quality report. At the very least, you should have
available long-term studies of the effects of constant exposure to
wireless radiation on the cognitively impaired and frail elderly. It is
morally wrong to use the residents of long-term care homes as research
subjects without their knowledge or consent.
I will re-iterate the questions which must be answered in regards to
wireless technology deployment:
1.How do you intend to ascertain which residents, many of whom are
non-verbal or inarticulate, are suffering from wifi-related effects?
2. How will you tell the difference between a progression of underlying
disease and the effects of the wireless radiation?
3. Will a comprehensive health survey of all staff and residents be
undertaken before and after the wifi is activated?
4. Will all volunteers and private care givers be informed of the health
risks of wifi and be fully informed of the radiation they will be
receiving?
5. When residents show signs of electrosensitivity, how will they be
protected from the wireless radiation, which goes through doors,
ceilings and floors?
6. Will pregnant staff be granted a fully paid leave of absence for the
duration of their pregnancy, to protect unborn children from the risks
of radiation exposure?
There are more studies and more reports being published on this issue
every week. What would make it clear enough to you that it is harmful,
at which point you would immediately dismantle the wireless technology?
This will happen eventually, and it would be better not to waste
taxpayers' money on this experiment in the first place.
These questions will not go away. Ms. Pitters has declined to answer
them, so I will ask Ms. White to do so. Someone has to take
responsibility here.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Penner
I received a letter from Ms. White on February 1st, 2011 which stated
that Dr. Arlene King, Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Province
of Ontario, issued a statement on September 16th, 2010, stating that
WIFI presents no serious health risks. I believe she is referring to the
OAHPP report. It seems to be on the basis of this report alone that you
have decided to implement wireless technology.
I would like to remind Ms. Pitters that I emailed her twice in November
asking to discuss this report, as there is much to critique in it. In
particular, it seems that the effects of wifi have been compared to
cellphone use, which is odd, considering that cellphones are used a few
minutes a day, while wifi is broadcasting all the time. There is a big
difference between an occasional exposure and a constant exposure. There
are a number of other serious concerns with this report, which does not
in any way justify a conclusion that there are no serious health risks.
In fact, the report states in its own conclusions:
"Research on potential health effects from exposure to RF energy is an
active field of investigation. Not surprisingly there is inconsistency
and in some cases conflict between the results of individual studies.
Given this inconsistency, it is possible to select the results of
individual research studies in support of a variety of opinions; which
may range from no risk of health effects on the one hand, to a clear
need to reduce current exposure limits on the other.
For this reason, up-to-date reviews of literature which follow a weight
of evidence approach are far more useful for informing debate and sound
policy making than reliance on individual studies."
The "weight of evidence" approach has itself been criticized as being
unscientific. (Professor Jerry Phillips recently spoke to CBC about this
- listen to:
http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2011/01/30/egypt-protests---cellphone-radiation---ken-nordine/#socialcomments
. The interview is in the last half of the second hour.) It is far too
easy for people to cherry-pick their studies, and for industry to
manipulate data. There are, however, plenty of good studies showing
harm.
I have sent links to quite a bit of information to Ms. Pitters, but now
have the impression that it was not considered. To impose such a
questionable technology on the people in your care without doing your
own research seems to me rather negligent. You may very well have
ignored "the best advice possible".
But this is not just about serious health risks, it is also about
serious discomforts, such as those suffered by my father. I know dozens
of people who have suffered such discomforts; healthy, robust adults and
children with no other cause for their symptoms. How can you possibly
say that no frail or cognitively impaired seniors will be adversely
affected by wifi?
It is irresponsible in the extreme to go ahead with wifi installation
based on such a poor quality report. At the very least, you should have
available long-term studies of the effects of constant exposure to
wireless radiation on the cognitively impaired and frail elderly. It is
morally wrong to use the residents of long-term care homes as research
subjects without their knowledge or consent.
I will re-iterate the questions which must be answered in regards to
wireless technology deployment:
1.How do you intend to ascertain which residents, many of whom are
non-verbal or inarticulate, are suffering from wifi-related effects?
2. How will you tell the difference between a progression of underlying
disease and the effects of the wireless radiation?
3. Will a comprehensive health survey of all staff and residents be
undertaken before and after the wifi is activated?
4. Will all volunteers and private care givers be informed of the health
risks of wifi and be fully informed of the radiation they will be
receiving?
5. When residents show signs of electrosensitivity, how will they be
protected from the wireless radiation, which goes through doors,
ceilings and floors?
6. Will pregnant staff be granted a fully paid leave of absence for the
duration of their pregnancy, to protect unborn children from the risks
of radiation exposure?
There are more studies and more reports being published on this issue
every week. What would make it clear enough to you that it is harmful,
at which point you would immediately dismantle the wireless technology?
This will happen eventually, and it would be better not to waste
taxpayers' money on this experiment in the first place.
These questions will not go away. Ms. Pitters has declined to answer
them, so I will ask Ms. White to do so. Someone has to take
responsibility here.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Penner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UC researchers: LED lights contain lead, arsenic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Senate Bill 679 as presently introduced in the 76th Oregon
Legislative Assembly, 2011 Regular Session.
PDF: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0600.dir/sb0679.intro.pdf
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure
and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the
Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the
essential features of the measure as introduced.
Prohibits retailer from selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease
or otherwise distributing cellular telephone unless cellular telephone
and packaging bear specific label.
Makes violation unlawful trade practice.
Becomes operative July 1, 2012.
Beau
Legislative Assembly, 2011 Regular Session.
PDF: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0600.dir/sb0679.intro.pdf
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure
and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the
Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the
essential features of the measure as introduced.
Prohibits retailer from selling, leasing, offering for sale or lease
or otherwise distributing cellular telephone unless cellular telephone
and packaging bear specific label.
Makes violation unlawful trade practice.
Becomes operative July 1, 2012.
Beau
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
istockAnalyst.com (press release)
10--State Attorney General George Jepsen and officials at Connecticut Light & Power Co. are sparring over a plan to bring so-called "smart meters" to the ...
10--State Attorney General George Jepsen and officials at Connecticut Light & Power Co. are sparring over a plan to bring so-called "smart meters" to the ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ElectromagneticHealth.org's Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children from Wireless Technologies
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/letter-to-parents/
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/letter-to-parents/
Please share widely. Post and tweet!
Thanks,
Camilla
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Unveils Wireless Expansion Plan
Note - Until now I have been quite impressed by President Obama but, with this new wireless plan, he is likely to harm more American citizens than all the terrorist organisations combined. Someone must get through to him so that he understands the adverse health effects of micro-wave radiation and the great damage that he is going to inflict on his own people. This decision must be changed and a safe method of communications used instead.
Martin Weatherall
Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org
To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
