Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Lower Mainland opposition / threat to health / fear health effects / smart-meter maker / AT&T Sues etc

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News 

11 May 2011

Proposed new cellphone towers are drawing opposition from residents of Port ... associated with radiation, there is also a cancer concern," said Smith. ...

Business Recorder
Mobile towerISLAMABAD: Cell tower numbers in thick populated areas have grown exponentially in recent years, though the health experts warn that electromagnetic radiation from cell phone towers is disastrous for human (and animal) health. ...

Blacktown Sun
Betsy George, who lives within 200 metres of where Telstra plans to build its tower, said she feared for the health of her two sons. "At the end of the day it's electromagnetic radiation that's being emitted," she said. "Although it's not supposedly at ...
Toshiba to bid for Swiss smart-meter maker Landis+Gyr

TOKYO, May 10 (Reuters) - Toshiba Corp is among bidders including US and European firms vying to buy Switzerland-based smart metering company Landis+Gyr, the Nikkei business daily reported, in an auction that sources have said could fetch as much as $2 billion ...

I guess Toshiba are also prepared to pay huge restitution bills?
Phoenix New Times
No other spot for a cell-phone tower is available in the area, says the company. ... from 65 feet and the antenna's horizontal width from eight feet to six. ...
Why are people driving through the mountains while yapping on their cell phones?
Hi, Everyone,
I am trying to document health effects suffered by people who have smart meters attached to their homes/apartments. Could anyone who has contact me directly?
Please circulate this widely and please give my email address. I appreciate any help you can give to get feedback from people across the US and Canada as quickly as possible.
Many thanks,
Sharon Noble
Letter to the Minister of Health
Minister Aglukkaq, Ms. Pieterson,
For years Health Canada has had evidence from various sources that radiation below Safety Code 6's allowable limits cause significant harm. Yet both of you and others in Health Canada continue to give the public false assurances that the contrary is true. You both have hidden behind WHO's and ICNIRP's guidelines which, they admit, apply only to thermal radiation and are not protective or applicable to radiation from wireless devices, such as cell transmitters, phones, and WiFi. You continue to recommend that provincial medical officers ignore independent health studies which show that children are especially vulnerable to this radiation and encourage proliferation of WiFi and smart meters in every community.
It is with faint hope that I send you yet one more piece of evidence showing that WHO and ICNIRP are colluding with industry to maintain, or even increase, the current radiation exposure limits. In response to each letter I've sent with peer-reviewed, gold standard studies showing harm to DNA, heart, fertility, and the blood brain barrier I received a form letter telling me that Safety Code 6 is safe. I expect nothing different with regard to this letter.  Instead I am ensuring that you cannot say you were not aware of this information when you are called forward to testify, be it in a court of law or before a higher power.
Dr. Don Maisch has spent decades researching these 2 agencies, following the infiltration by industry, the money spent to ensure the public's interest will be suppressed for the sake of profit. The same persons use the same terminology, e.g. risk assessment and weight of evidence, to justify the agencies' actions. Over the years we've all learned what these terms mean to them and to Health Canada:
-  Risk assessment means: Do the financial costs justify taking action? Until the health costs in dollars and cents outweigh the financial costs of doing things in a safer way, nothing should be done.( A cost-benefit analysis at its basest.) How much is the life of a child, or ten, worth? Compare this with the cost of putting a hydro line underground? If only a few hundred additional people get cancer from cell transmitters, that can't justify the cost of requiring fiber optic cables instead of towers near homes and schools.
-  Weight of evidence: The industry will have many studies produced showing no harm. They will outnumber the independent studies which show harm. This will be used as evidence to support the statement that there is no evidence of harm as if a study showing no harm negates a study showing harm. (The "scale of justice"?) The public will never realize that if something is safe there would never be a study showing harmful effects.
You and Health Canada can no longer hide behind WHO and ICNIRP. Their bias and conflict of interest is well documented. Now, what justification will you use to continue to allow Canadians to be exposed to dangerous environments?
I look forward to hearing your responses.
Sharon Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, BC V9C 3V5

Government report warns UK IT infrastructure is at risk

Climate change could threaten UK WiFi

NASA Scientist Helps Teens Sue Government over Climate Change

The suit is based on the Public Trust Doctrine, a long-standing legal doctrine that states it is the government's duty to protect the resources that are essential for our collective survival and prosperity, such as rivers, groundwater, or in this case, atmosphere, according to Our Children's Trust, a nonprofit advocacy organization behind the litigation. 




Albany Times Union
Agency spokesman Keith McKeever said the cell tower and antenna surge was a result of increased market forces in the mobile phone industry, and not of any ...


Toronto Public Health Wi Fi
This week the TDSB had a health meeting:
Note - The best assurance that they can offer is - Wi Fi is not likely to lead to health effects in the general population

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