The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic PollutionTues 5 March 2013
an aggravation of his sensitivity to EMF; or,
an aggravation of his symptoms by reason of his honest belief that he suffers from the condition of EMF sensitivity '
The determination can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2013/105.html
EMR Australia PL
02 9576 1772
EHS on BBC Television South region
With many thanks to ES-UK Trustees, Professor Denis Henshaw, and medical doctor Andrew Tresidder for helping viewers understand aspects of EHS the possible source of their headaches, tinnitus, sleeplessness and heart rhythm variability.
Apparently two pilots fainted during a flight and the question is, "Could this have been related to electrosmog exposure?"
Many of us are aware that some flights have-and many more flights will have-Wi-Fi connectivity. This is bad news for those sensitive to this energy and for those not wanting to be exposed unnecessary. However, if you are a pilot or co-pilot and you become ill when you are exposed to this radiation it could be disastrous!
I know of a high school student who fainted after standing just a few feet from a Wi-Fi router in the hall of her school. She had braces, which would make the radiation worse.
The cockpit of an airplane is already electromagnetically polluted by low frequency (400 Hz) magnetic fields associated with the internal wires (that typically run through conduits behind both the pilot and co-pilot) and that are generated by the heating of the windows (to keep them flexible); to the radar; to the "coming soon" Wi-Fi radiation. That combined with being in polluted airports, cosmic radiation, changes in time-zones, job-stress, and sleep issues may produce the perfect storm.
From a scientific perspective it would be useful to know how health status of pilots has changed during the last few decades and how much their exposure to radiation has changed during that same period.
I was on a flight a few years ago from Las Vegas to Toronto (no I wasn't gambling) and measured the cockpit of the airplane. I was told that the industry had done measurements a few years earlier but neither the industry nor the union released the results to their pilots! In this case "no news" is not necessarily "good news"!
There are certain professions that are responsible for the lives of many and pilots and co-pilots are near the top of that list. We need to take this situation seriously if we want to avert a disaster. Even in the event that we are wrong about electrosmog making pilots faint, practicing good electromagnetic hygiene on board civilian and military aircrafts is a good idea.
Some of you know that I removed this article from my website for several days. The more I thought about removing it the more uncomfortable I felt and I realized I removed it for the wrong reasons.
Israeli cell phone company will pay 400,000 NIS to cancer victim
Electrical Bill Shocker in Okanagan
Hundreds of people around the Okanagan are hot under the collar after seeing their latest electrical bill. Many contacted Castanet News Thursday afternoon voicing their dissatisfaction and frustration over energy bills that are, in some instances, nearly twice what they were a year ago.
Asking the Supreme Court (SC) to direct the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) to prove **beyond reasonable doubt the hypotheses that there are no health hazards due to electromagnetic (EMF) radiation from cellphone tower antenna and mobile phone**, some citizen groups in the city have made a submission to the ongoing case in the SC.
Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices
Dr. Daniel Krewski, Chair - University of Ottawa
Dr. Brian Christie - University of Victoria
Dr. Richard Findlay - Health Protection Agency (UK)
Dr. Kenneth Foster - University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Louise Lemyre, FRSC - University of Ottawa
Dr. John Moulder - Medical College of Wisconsin
Dr. Frank Prato - Western University
Dr. Rianne Stam - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
How could they ignore all the biological effects caused by electro magnetic radiation?
You published for public knowledge, the details of the panel of experts who review Safety Code 6.
Controversy at IARC
Broadcast: November 25, 2003
What does this squabbling mean for the cellphone study and for those of us who use a cellphone? The critics are accusing IARC of not trying hard enough to keep industry money and influence away from the science. Marketplace wondered whether industry money could be influencing IARC's study on cellphones, especially in Canada.
Dan Krewski, of the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa, is one of Canada's lead scientists for the IARC study.
"This'll be the largest study of brain cancer ever conducted and will give us the opportunity to really look in detail for small risks with cellular technology."
Krewski has about a million dollars to fund his part of the IARC research.
"We originally approached the CWTA through Roger Poirier who at the time was president and CEO of the organization."
Poirier's the man who said studies into the cellphones and cancer risks showed " no adverse health effects "
The current head of the association is Peter Barnes. He says the million dollars his lobby group is giving to Krewski's centre has no strings attached.
"I mean we basically sign a cheque every year for five years, we committed to that, and apart from knowing that the money is being used for the research that's the extent of our involvement."
IARC told Marketplace that Canada is the only one of 13 countries in the study to receive funding directly from the cellphone industry.
Marketplace's research found that the CWTA and its members invested $1 million to help establish the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa where Dan Krewski is doing his cellphone research.
Krewski's centre gets the cheques directly from the CWTA. But to get the relationship stamped officially "arm's length," he had to get the deal reviewed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which also threw in $220,000 of government money.
According to IARC guidelines, this funding has to be indirect - so it went through the CIHR. That makes the funding not directly connected to the industry.
The study is not Krewski's only link to the cellphone industry. If you search the web for information about cellphones, you might come across the Wireless Information Resource Centre paid for by the CWTA.
Krewski chairs the Wireless Information Resource Centre's scientific advisory group. Roger Poirier former head of the CWTA administers the web site. Another link between the cellphone scientist and the cellphone lobby: Poirier the man who negotiated the million-dollar deal is a paid consultant on the big cellphone study for IARC.
When we reached Poirier by phone, he told us his involvement with the cellphone study is minor and purely technical. He didn't want to talk to us on camera.
Krewski described Poirier's involvement as "a liaison."
"He puts us in contact with the right people when we need info on technical aspects of cell phones for the WHO study He doesn't see scientific results, he does not participate in scientific meetings."
A chart we produce for Krewski shows the same names and links popping up frequently.
"I can see how you could get that sort of perception there may be something leading to some sort of complications here, but if you actually look at the roles of the organizations and agencies that you've got on your chart and what they're actually doing, the industry, clearly, both in Canada and internationally, is hands off," Krewski says.
But it wasn't that clear in Europe. The scientists at IARC say the European cellphone industry did try to negotiate more influence over that end of the study.
"So we wanted not only to avoid any bias, but we didn't want to get any involvement with an industry which then doesn't like the results and tries all kinds of things," IARC's Peter Kleihues said.
Kleihues told us industry reps came knocking as the negotiations on the study were happening.
"They wanted to give us the money. They said 'enlarge, do more, you will be happy because we are so much interested, we are under pressure, we would like a bigger and better study,' and we said 'no, it's not possible, we can't accept the money.'"
"Yeah, basically we refused until a contract was drawn up that ensured we had no strings attached," research scientist Elisabeth Cardis said.
That means there is still industry funding in Europe, but a third party administers the money. In Canada, the industry money goes to Dan Krewski's centre.
Cardis adds the connections involved with the Canadian part of the study don't seem to be a conflict of interest to her. But her boss IARC chief Paul Kleihues does seem concerned about our findings.
"Well, I think this is a reason for concern. Industry doesn't give you a free lunch usually. That means industry expects something back for any money they do, and I think we must look into this. It's a matter of concern and we must find out if it's sufficient reason to exclude that branch of the study or not."
Kleihues goes on to say that as far as he can see, the Canadian part of the study appears to have been set up carefully, to follow the rules.
As we kept digging, we discovered that not only does the Canadian cellphone lobby pay for a chunk of Krewski's research at the University of Ottawa, it also has an impact on his salary. We learned that the CWTA money unleashes government money that goes towards Krewski's salary. Krewski says these arrangements are all above board.
The head of IARC - Paul Kleihues told us he was reviewing for possible conflicts of interest the contracts people like Krewski had signed. He said no decisions or changes would be made until an IARC meeting in mid-December.
As for the study itself it won't be complete for a couple of years. So get ready for another long wait before we get any definitive answer on that old riddle over cellphones and cancer.
All cellphones in Canada meet the basic radiation safety guidelines. But anyone concerned about exposure can take a couple of steps to limit it:
- When you see only one or two bars on your phone's display, it means the signal is weak and your phone is trying harder to connect with the tower. That's when radiation is highest. Wait until all the bars are there for less radiation.
- Radiation is also higher when you first place a call, as your phone seeks a connection. If you wait until the call has connected, your exposure will be lower.
- Keep your calls short shorter calls means less exposure.
Devastating new radar