Thursday, September 30, 2010

Grounding the human body / Scientific studies : Discharge routine / Drew Sinatra, ND, speaks out / The cellphone song / "Scientific American" or Lady Gaga?

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

30 September 2010


A. Clinton Ober

[view Mr. Ober's bio]

Ventura, CA

Robert R


EMF - Scientific studies : Discharge routine (human physiology, stress, pain, sleep,)


Drew Sinatra, ND, speaks out on behalf of people with electrohypersensitivity

at White Rock Council Meeting, September 27, 2010.

From Council Chambers ....27 Sep 2010



(the cellphone song) Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age by ...

By admin

Lyrics Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age Its like the hissing of pots and the cooking of cells twisting in knots like the book of the kells. its the clotting of minds – its a fight with the heart the rotting of time, ... plan is to leave us high and dry and the FDA policy is to lie and deny it goes one ear – but not out the other. i aquired alzeimers and i doubt ill recover whos responsible for the wear and tear on my brain i know that im here


Who gives better science "Scientific American" or Lady Gaga?

Read all about it at:

Louis Slesin


Dear Mr. Wehrle:

I agree with your excellent article except for one blaring fallacy, regarding the extant science and criteria therefor. You say:

"Neither of these influences has anything to do with health, but they are significant factors in any decision Health Canada will make. I suggest that to overcome those two influences there will have to be irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of harm and that level of evidence does not yet exist."

First, how unfortunate that the Precautionary Principle, which is international law, and to which Canadian federal law further subscribes, ought not in your view apply. This said, I have long observed the Precautionary Principle to be disregarded by public officials in all of North America, as if the US and Canada were not signatories, which they in fact are. Do you truly not recognize this law? If so, please tell, whyever not?

Secondly, I am absolutely astonished you would assert that irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of harm does not exist, while admitting this is not your field of expertise, and after I showed you a very full and quantitative literature review of the infrastructural-level scientific literature of the past twenty+ years.

Perhaps you have confused this literature with that relating to cell phone usage, which my former mentor Devra Lee Davis cites as internally inconclusive on account of industry influence?

These respective, very disparate scientific literatures must not be confused, differing as they do by the following essential factors.

Infrastructural studies v. cell phone usage studies:

  a. Primarily far-field v. primarily near-field exposures;

  b. Measured power density exposure levels v. estimated, absorbed dosages as SAR;

  c. Primarily chronic, longterm, even maximal and permanent duration v. primarily short and intermittent durations;

  d. Primarily involuntary, government-forced, unavoidable v. primarily voluntary, avoidable exposures;

  e. All humans, animals and plants v. primarily healthy, financially capable*, competent adults and their older children

* Capable enough to pay a cell phone bill, for example.

When you consider the extreme differences in these important variables, you understand why, as Dr. Dimitri Panagopoulos and others testified this year before Parliament, the scientific literature would indeed and in fact does show irrefutably and with overwhelming evidence the very serious and often permanent harmfulness of pulse-modulated cm-microwave radiation in interaction with the human body.

This well established fact cannot be refuted by the endless industry and industry-driven position statements that continue to use bullying power to overwhelm public opinion.

Anyone can look at the primary scientific papers and witness both their conclusions and their power density numbers. I made those papers available to you and all those who attended my lectures. Sadly, without the slightest review of that science, you made a false conclusion - publicly! - with no knowledge whatsoever, rather than avail yourself of the primary documents.

Nor, to my knowledge, has any other school trustee in Canada so much as inquired of the primary science. I thank you, at least, for attending my lectures, where I provided a basis for understanding this science and the quantitative data on the studies.

All school administrators and teachers, as well as parents working on the matter of school wifi, ought review these studies' conclusions publicly, one by one, with the numbers at which researchers concluded harm at power densities lower than Safety Code 6.

Let us be objective and caring toward both the rigorous RFR bioeffects science performed by many since the late 1920s - and toward our children. Otherwise the cloud of industry smoke-and-mirrors will continue to confuse policy, as you point out. Let us all set a good example for our children and not shrink from learning science. Since you are a physicist, I know you'll agree with me on this!

With gratitude for your initial efforts,

Susan Clarke

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