Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Wi Fi Health Risk Advisory / The Precautionary Principle / Wi Fi in Long-Term Care Homes / workplace injury / St. Petersburg / Health concerns / School cell tower / Radiation Fall Out

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

30 March 2011

Wi Fi is illegal in schools

I have attached a file that is a Wi-Fi Health Risk Advisory. Wi Fi is illegal in schools as per Health Canada's Safety Code 6, they need to enforce it.

The attachment contains the reporting of Randy Ross and Tony Muc. The first page shows what they missed in their reporting on the issue.

Curtis Bennett


The Precautionary Principle

Dear All,

In case you have not yet seen it, I hereby want to strongly recommend reading one of our recent papers, Dämvik M, Johansson O, "Health risk assessment of electromagnetic fields: A conflict between the precautionary principle and environmental medicine methodology", Rev Environ Health 2010; 25: 325-333 (See attached paper).

(Abstract) The purpose of the precautionary principle is that legal requirements are to be made to safeguard against the possible health risks that have not yet been scientifically established. That a risk is not established cannot, therefore, be used as an excuse for not applying the principle. Yet, that rationale is exactly what is happening in the case of the possible health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). The scientists, representing both the World Health Organization and the European Commission, do not have at all the precautionary principle in mind when they report on health risks. Their starting point is instead to determine whether new research findings have been scientifically established and thus cannot be the basis for an amendment to the existing exposure limits.

Uncertain indications of risk are ignored or played down. This approach is in conflict with European Union (EU) law, which requires that the degree of scientific uncertainty should be presented correctly. A thorough examination of the state of research shows many serious indications of possible health risks from exposure very far below existing limits for EMF.

Case law, for other types of exposure, also shows that the precautionary principle can be applied on the basis of weaker evidence than that. Our investigation shows that the precautionary principle is not being used for its intended purpose in relation to exposure to EMF. The reason for this position is that decision-makers are being misled by inaccurate risk assessments.

Best regards
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm


The Dangers of using Wi Fi in Long-Term Care Homes

David McKeown, Medical Officer of Health (MOH),

In your letter of March 16, 2011 to my wife and co-advocate against the dangers of wireless, Lorraine Penner, after referral by Councillor Fletcher of the Board of Health, you state that wifi "is being installed so that LTCHS [Long-Term Care Homes and Services] could comply with strategies directed by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) related to the eHealth Ontario initiative." In consultation with a senior staff person at that Health Ministry, it was made clear to me that the final say for such installation is with the administration of LTCHS. There thus must be freedom to not comply.

In the same letter you mention assurance made to myself and my wife that the wifi "would be at least one hundred or more times below Health Canada's Code 6". It is presumed that your interest in such a figure regards the local "prudent avoidance" policy predating your arrival as MOH, of 100x less than Code 6. There thus is freedom for a municipal health department to advise and act independently.

You state that we "expressed deep concerns on behalf of residents at all long-term care homes regarding the Wi-Fi system". It is not clear whether you meant that such "concerns" were expressed at the May meeting, since we have had many communications past that date with LTCHS and others on topic. Regardless, "concerns" is an altogether inappropriate term. When bullous pemphigoid breaks out after wi-fi switch-on, and completely abates at shut-off, and it is known that such is an expected reaction in some people to artificial electromagnetic insult such as from wifi, it does not take much reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that wifi danger is not a mere "concern". Negative behavioural changes were also noted in one resident at Cummer Lodge starting while wifi was on, abating at switch-off. Already two such strongly evident reactions among the very few residents we could notice from regular visits there. How many years of study of public health is required to make the appropriate and obvious judgement?

You mention the OAHPP "independent review of the science". Did you take a moment to examine the gross inadequacy of that review, regardless of what the provincial CMOH ineptly says on its basis? You could be shown almost line-by-line sharp criticism of it.

You mention the federal Standing Committee (HESA). If you "followed the outcome", did you actually read or hear the testimony? It was devastating to the dangerous status quo even in the constrained conference circumstances, and regardless of the politicians' eventual lame & inept report response. Note that of all the witnesses assembled for the federal Dept. of Health status quo, but a single one was from HC itself, the rest industry-connected. In collaboration with two co-advocates from BC & Quebec, I was responsible for the invitation of HESA witnesses against the dangerous status quo. Are you aware what happened to our European whistleblower witnesses, just after their testimony to your Parliamentary Committee? Drs Johansson, Sasco & Panagopolous had their academic offices removed from them. Dr Goldsworthy had recently retired, so could not have his office removed, although it had been removed for similar truth-telling just prior to retirement. There is no doubt a concerted effort to squelch their brave and honest speaking out based on scientific study, as has happened to others in this sorry field. The youngest, and for that maybe most vulnerable, of that group is Panagopoulos, who further has had his transfer to a prestigious research facility blocked, and has had a learned paper refused at a publication where many times his oft-cited work has already appeared. While some people with some awareness of the dangers of latter-day wireless mania, such as at TPH and other such departments, collect six-figure incomes while not daring to act bravely for the sake of public health on these grave issues, others suffer for telling the truth, and for advocating based on non-industry-connected science. Our own family, for our vigourous advocacy facing this outrageous travesty, has thus far lost about a year's income in the dedicated effort already.

In a culture where money rules, what should perhaps sound the loudest alarm bells, but that insurance companies will not insure for physical harm caused by latter-day wireless mania? Who insures against bullous pemphigoid, behavioural changes and other such harm from the eHealth-compliant wifi at LTCHS, as well as other institutional wifi, in schools, libraries, etc., not to mention cell phone towers on City property & elsewhere broadcasting even at max. 100x less than HC Danger Code 6?

You refer to the lame HESA report -- censored of much submitted material, wouldn't you know, some of which can be provided to your Dept. -- and to a "current lack of conclusive evidence linking low level RF exposures causally to the array of symptoms reported by those with electromagnetic sensitivity". "Sensitivity", while ubiquitous, is a misleading term. Biological beings are exquisitely electromagnetic, and have been shown to react to synthetic "non-ionizing" radiation at exposures billions of times lower than even TPH's prudent avoidance levels. Everyone's bodies can be assumed to "sense" the onslaught in some way; it is a question of whether one reacts, or knows to make the connexion between some symptom and the electomagnetic insult. In some people such as myself, milder sufferer, I can often quickly tell, based on sensations about my forehead and scalp, when in proximity to wifi, from which I know to flee, such as at the Toronto Central Reference Library, which in '09 resulted in an email exchange of some length in which an effort to individually accommodate me was offered. This is a tactic similar to what is occurring at Cummer Lodge, where a knowledgeable dissenting family is isolated and dealt with separately, so as not to perturb a broader plan, doubtless ultimately in the main pandering to unseen investors caring really only for the health of their investments or pet schemes. Adequate wired substitutes for this eHealth wifi for nurses exist, as they do for schools, libraries, etc.

Further, the HESA report did not discuss, as you say, but merely mentioned HC's position about lack of causality. This is truly bizarre, as at both those very April meetings, for glaring example, BQ HESA MP Serge Cardin attested to his own electrosensitivity!! In our private meeting with another HESA MP, her own such sensitivity was spoken of. At that May meeting of which you write in your letter, we were told that two of your senior TPH staff keep their own occupationally required cell phones off. What is going on? How do you think all this looks?

You seem in the letter to offer dosimetry for the Cummer Lodge situation. But when Code 6 is irrelevant and unprotective especially regarding long-term exposures, as is even TPH's 100x less, what is the use of taking measurements? (A further irony is that the section of the facility where my wife's mother resides, is a relatively very low radiation zone for Toronto, as determined by own own dosimetry, this refuge to be taken away by offending wifi emitters put elsewhere in the building.) Much more "sensible" would be for your Dept. to closely monitor any and all changes to staff and residents' health at such facilities before and after - of course, this is unethical, non-consensual, uninformed human experimentation, but in the crazy context, it can appear "sensible". If you would find that sickness increased, spaces opened up more quickly as the elderly died off faster, staff felt impaired; even were all that to present itself, based on current nonsensical behaviour by "authorities", since no "mechanism" for harm has been found fully satisfactory to the orthodox defenders of the status quo, there might be no conclusions drawn about the wifi, it would be formally "inconclusive". (Dr Panagopoulos has recently prepared in a textbook chapter what appears now to be the best description to date of mechanism for harm at the cellular level, replete with equations. Have you consulted this, as have we laypeople? Do you know that almost every study, from broad symptomology to cancer outcome, has shown great danger from long-term exposure to cell mast radiation, which studies are brushed aside by HC, WHO, ICNIRP, OAHPP et al by methodological nitpickiness, all the while discouraging such direct study? A meta-view such as one would expect from a MOH, would see past and through such attitudes, to recommend strong protective action.)

I certainly support your being "prepared to continue to have TPH staff work with LTCHS so as to ensure [...]", but only as it includes closer scrutiny of the independent (non-industry-connected) science, and broadens the scope to cover all electromagnetic insult to Torontonians, getting variously sicker and sicker as latter-day wireless mania is allowed its proliferation with hardly a peep from public "health" authorities. An eventual 1/2 of us to cancer is now predicted, 1/3 to dementia, among very many other strange 20th century developments continuing, as public health care costs continue their inexorable annual rise since, guess what, the later '90s mass proliferation of cell telephony. And the mass effects in dementia, cancer, etc., of the mass putting of radiative devices right up against heads, are just beginning. Your colleague MOH in Grey-Bruce acknowledges to me awareness of deleterious health effects which should be minimized, yet begs off acting on this awareness. Your colleagues in Halton emphasize to me dubiously that they pay attention to "credible" science, apparently oblivious to implications of using such an adjective, impugning as it does innumerable international scientists, as it does acquiesce in (well-documented) industry capture of process. Your colleagues in York Region are for now seeming - maybe in the wake of several anti-cell-mast battles, some ongoing - to take things a bit more seriously, it remaining to be seen how seriously and for how long, with the numerous suggestions proferred as to how they can act forthrightly.

Meanwhile, for one of many burgeoning bizarre examples, we just witnessed a third such recent live on-air incident, where a Canadian television news broadcaster suddenly speaks incoherently, half-self-aware, a neurological event doubtless precipitated in and by the xenobiotic synthetic electromagnetic soup they are condemned to operate in. A recent JAMA-published study graphically depicts brain alterations at regular cell phone use (confirming yet again various other such demonstrations of clear brain effect). A recent review published at NRC Press demonstrates clear & obvious danger from cell phone towers, as do two even more recent studies from Germany & Brazil, as wifi is likened to bringing a cell tower indoors, regardless of current regulatory standards and purported assurances based on fractions of a guideline unprotective for especially athermal effects. Copes' hapless OAHPP report you refer to, had to resort to cell phone & cell tower studies, as there is next to nothing on wifi itself, never mind long-term effect, never mind on the particularly vulnerable incapable of advocating for themselves, helpless residents overseen by LTCHS. So much science before and since attesting to danger, yet, truly ridiculous and disastrous in a public health context, "weight of evidence" persuasive to HC et al is laden by the corrupt $ of industry & abettors.

Tell us, why must we re-live, but on a surpassing scale, asbestos, tobacco, and so many other bioeffect travesties, things one presumes public health professionals have been educated about?

In your letter to myself of December 18, 2009, an apparent analogy was made in justifying TPH inaction re the dangers of wireless. The sample case at hand was of one adult-onset epileptic Torontonian (no drugs, no trauma), who suffers seizures when and only when exposed to even far below TPH "prudent avoidance" levels of wireless assault. (This person has since fled your Toronto, further worsened now with wireless utility meters, for a rural location of far lower ambient "electrosmog", and is until now fending off proposed approaching cell masts and wireless meters.) Such suffering under "acceptable" ambient radiation, seemed likened by you to a person susceptible to violent reaction to shellfish venturing into a restaurant from which TPH would not ban shellfish. Voluntary vs involuntary, private vs public, individual vs mass, and on & on, the issue re consumption or allowance of shellfish resembles not at all the case of TPH acquiescence in mass human experimentation with wireless mania, with already well-known consequences, without forcefully addressing the issue. Will you retract that apparent analogy, in an effort to restore some confidence in your own ability to consider these grave issues?

We remain prepared to assist closely any authority looked to by the general public, towards consideration and action independent of the industry-captured hierarchy that pertains in this field. It will eventually be seen that the regnant permissive regime, decried already for decades by learned dissenters who have been muscled out, will have formed a necessary ingredient behind a panoply of modern ailments that could have been curtailed, had public health authorities spoken out resolutely. In 1997, a petition was signed (you can be shown a copy, and likewise have substantiated anything else written here) by just about every public health scientist in the Boston area, around 100 names, against the then-imminent mass deployment of its cell phone network. That is the kind of science-based dissent that has gotten muscled out. Will you continue to go along with that?

As your letter was addressed to Lorraine, expect a separate reply from her.

Daryl Vernon

416 631 1495

61 Charleswood Dr.

M3H 1X5


Woman claims cell phone radiation is workplace injury

CHBC News, Kelowna: Wednesday, March 16, 2011

A North Okanagan woman says she was injured by radiation from her cell phone 13 years ago and she's been battling to prove it ever since.

Barb Makota, who used to sell cell phones, says she developed burning sores on her face whenever she put the devices on her face.

In 2000, she was diagnosed with electrical sensitivity and is now battling Work Safe BC to recognize her injuries.

Despite letters from a dozen doctors confirming her claims, Makota says her claims have been rejected by Work Safe BC.

She even has evidence from new thermographic images showing considerable damage to her brain, eyes, ears, face, neck, hands and arms.

Makota says she is still in constant pain.

She no longer uses a cell phone or a computer.

When she does watch TV, it's through a silver lined veil that blocks some of the electrical signal.

Makota is pointing a finger at the Canadian government and what she believes is a major flaw in our safety codes.

She is preparing for an appeal against Work Safe BC.

Iris / Mark


St. Petersburg, Russia, 16–17 October, 2000

Proceedings from the International workshop Clinical and physiological investigations of people highly exposed to electromagnetic fields

St. Petersburg, Russia, 16–17 October, 2000

Kjell Hansson-Mild, Monica Sandström and Eugene Lyskov (eds)

Good information about heart and nervous system affected by EMFs


Health concerns arise from Smart Meters


Electromagnetic radiation is a field of electrons flowing around an electric current like batteries, wires and appliances. In the body these are called "free radicals" which bombard our cells, weakening their structure and leaving them susceptible to ...


Parents upset about planned high school cell tower

They've been leasing sites for cell phone towers for 15 years. ... looking at good research by the American Cancer Society, and we feel like this is safe ...

Good Research ? How about No Research? or False Research? Someone needs to tell the American Cancer Society that their job is to STOP cancer not to spread it !


Radiation Fall Out


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