Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
Safety Code 6 needs to be updated now
Frank Clegg, former President of MicroSoft Canada, is taking a leadership role trying to encourage Health Canada to update its antiquated guideline for radio frequency and microwave radiation.
Below is an article he wrote for The Hills times. Well worth reading. He is one of the founding members of www.c4st.org
Canada lagging behind China and Russia: Safety Code 6 needs to be updated now
By FRANK CLEGG
Published: Monday, 02/10/2014 12:00 am EST
Many parents assume that if a wireless gadget is in the marketplace, it is safe for children. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. During the holiday season, I can only imagine how many children received a cell phone or tablet and how few families read the fine print; safety is not guaranteed and worse, Canada's Safety Code 6 is an antiquated regulation that lags behind Russia and China. We must do better.
Industry Canada Minister James Moore's recent announcement regarding improved notification of cell tower requests for towers less than 15 metres is a very important first step in improving the process to avoid the placement of cell towers where families can be harmed. This demonstrates that our government is listening.
Health Canada's Minister Ambrose now has a tremendous opportunity to join countries such as Belgium, France and Israel and put Canada back on the map for protecting its citizens' health.
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 governs the safety of cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters and all other devices that now permeate every Canadian home. It impacts all of us, every day, and should protect us. But Safety Code 6 has not been significantly updated since the 1970s, long before Wi-Fi was invented or cell phones were sold.
Smart phone manufacturers Apple, Motorola, and Cisco all publish warnings in their manuals saying their phones, pads and Wi-Fi devices emit radiation shown to cause cancer in lab animals and to avoid over-exposure by holding it away from your body, or to keep a safe distance from "the lower abdomen of a teenage girl." Despite those stern warnings, the same companies are able to put such potentially harmful devices on store shelves in Canada. They are exercising a loophole in Health Canada's archaic safety standards for microwave devices that hasn't been updated in decades, since the first microwave, then the only emitting device in a Canadian home.
Belgium and France have new laws that don't allow manufacturers to market wireless devices to children because they are the most vulnerable. In Canada, we still force children in schools to be exposed to unmeasured levels of microwave radiation from cell phones and Wi-Fi.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has indicated that direct, long-term contact with wireless radiation is biologically harmful and can potentially have damaging health effects. In August 2011, shortly after the WHO classified radiofrequency radiation (the basis for all wireless devices) as possibly carcinogenic, Health Canada posted a warning that "encourages parents to reduce children's radiofrequency radiation (RF) exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents". There hasn't been any major progress since then. Canadians are left to read the foreign press to learn about the universal dangers of wireless radiation, if they want to protect their families.
Fortunately the sea is beginning to change across Canada with local governments rejecting Health Canada's antiquated approach to this 21st century health crisis. What we've witnessed in the last six months is much like the national movement that began in Quebec in the early 1990s. Municipalities had rejected the federal government's promise that all regulated pesticides are safe, and began banning the use of weed spray in urban environments due to high cancer rates.
Municipalities once again are finding their strength in municipal law and proactively ensuring citizens are better protected.
On Dec. 16, 2013, the City of West Vancouver Council voted against a Rogers' application to install three new cell towers along Upper Levels highway. On the same day, the City of Guelph Council passed a motion asking Industry Canada to place a moratorium on the approval of any new radio communication facilities until such time as the review of Safety Code 6 has been finalized. On Dec. 18, 2013, the City of Toronto Council required new Rogers cell towers to comply with Toronto's Prudent Avoidance Policy which sets radiation levels 100 times safer than Health Canada's Safety Code 6. Toronto also updated its protocol for cell towers less than 15 metres tall stating that "City Council encourage Health Canada to actively review health evidence, including the most recent scientific research and studies, related to human exposure to radiofrequencies and to revise Safety Code 6 to meet international best practices, in consultation with the public and appropriate experts." The towns of Thorold and Oakville, Ont. have already passed similar motions.
What Canada needs is a national approach that acknowledges what independent scientists have conclusively shown: There is no guarantee that children can be exposed to any amount of wireless radiation for any amount of time without a biological impact.
Many of the scientists sounding the alarm bell are the same individuals who warned us about acid rain, second-hand smoke, DDT, asbestos and other widespread public health disasters. As harmful as these banned agents are, none of them were more widespread in our homes than wireless radiation is now. Canada should enter the 21st century of health care--the age of prevention--and prevent another disaster by updating Safety Code 6.
Frank Clegg has played a leadership role in the country's technology sector and in the broader Canadian community for many years. Mr. Clegg, former Microsoft Canada president, is now the volunteer CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), a national, not-for-profit, volunteer-based coalition of parents, citizens and experts.
The Hill Times
Video: The federal government has announced new rules governing the construction of cellphone towers. But as Vassy Kapelos reports, there are concerns the rules don't go far enough.
OTTAWA - The federal government is trying to mitigate an irritant for some municipalities and resident groups by expanding the rules governing construction of new cellphone towers.
"New rules will mean that citizens will be better informed and better able to engage in the decision-making about where new antennas are going to be constructed in their communities," Industry Minister James Moore told a news conference. . . . READ ON
ALSO: Speech Transcript Speaking Points
OTTAWA, Feb. 5, 2014 /CNW/
"Today, the Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) applaud federal Industry Minister, the Honourable James Moore, for his assertive action that limits cellular companies' ability to build communications towers in communities unchecked and now requires more open consultation and engagement with citizens before new cellular towers under 15m can be built.
The announcement means that this outdated legislative loophole will be closed. The regulated exemption of communications towers under 15m arose during World War ll as a means of allowing ham radio operators to assist in war efforts. This loophole has allowed particularly egregious commercial sitings of towers, including in residential back yards and other sites close to occupied residences and buildings, as well as in sensitive areas that are designed to be prohibited under municipal land use policies.
"Minister Moore is to be credited for taking a huge step towards greater awareness and understanding of the potential health risks that come from more wireless radiation in our communities," said Frank Clegg, chief executive officer, C4ST,
"With today's announcement; we know that developments that include wireless radiation will require greater transparency and accountability to Canadians. I am encouraged that our federal government understands that health impacts resulting from wireless radiation should be treated seriously. I look forward to working together with Minister Ambrose to further improve wireless radiation safety standards through Health Canada's Safety Code 6."
"C4ST have long urged lawmakers to consider potential human health impacts of wireless radiation, advocating for increased transparency, education and awareness. C4ST welcomes today's news, believing it is a critical step in the right direction."
May 2013 update (story of Rich Farver shared on the documentary "Take Back Your Power")
Noteworthy: the cell tower outside of SDSU's Nasatir Hall is a HPWREN (High Performance Wireless Research Network). No wonder they do not want this investigated.
Has any health authority seriously investigated the cancer cluster at SDSU?
A mother talks about her 29-year-old son and others at San Diego State University (SDSU) who died of brain cancer within two years of exposure. SDSU remains silent and San Diego journalists will not report the story.
31 May 2013: This recent example from France is related to the post which follows:
"After two cases of cancer in children in the same village of 1,850 inhabitants in the north of France, members of three health agencies, including radiofrequency experts, travelled to the village to hold a public meeting on 22 May 2013 on this issue. Parents felt that the cause may be due to the presence of three mobile phone antennas near the school. One agency is ANSES, the French National Agency for Health, Environment, and Safety. Although not convinced that the mobile phone antennas may be the cause of the cancer, "we are not waiting until a third cancer declares itself," said the regional delegate of Priartem, a national association for the regulation of placement of mobile phone antennas. She is outraged by the manner in which health monitoring is practiced by agencies when confronted with cancer clusters, defined as several cases of cancer (generally of the same type) observed within a group of individuals in a more or less limited geographical area and over the course of a limited period of time."
Testimony of Virginia Farver, Fort Collins, Colorado . . .
" . . . Links have already been made between cellphone use and brain tumors, parotid gland tumors and esophageal cancer. Other cancers have not been studied.
"The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer," an article in a German journal by Horst Eger and others reports that "after five years' operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area [within 400 meters of the cell phone transmission mast]." The RF radiation levels within the 400 meters of the cell phone tower were 100 times higher than the levels outside that proximity. The risk of breast cancer within this area was so significantly elevated, also occurring on average nearly 20 years earlier, that the authors propose "A possible question for future research is whether breast cancer can be used as a 'marker cancer' for areas where there is high contamination from electromagnetic radiation."
Kleiber, of Waterloo, Wis., has personal experience with radiofrequency sickness and is author and webmaster of electricalpollution.com.
No Cell Towers in Cadboro Bay - B.C. Canada
One-woman led campaign results in Campbell River city council turning down Telus deal.
"Campbell River city council voted unanimously Tuesday night not to allow a Telus tower to be constructed in Willow Point Park.
"Councillor Larry Samson made the motion to axe the plan that would have garnered the city about $15,000 in payments per year. Samson said the city could not approve the deal without clear policy on commercialization in city parks.
"He also said people who have cell phones do that by choice, but putting a tower in the park and near residential neighbourhoods would be subjecting people to a "no choice" situation on radio frequency waves. .. .
"We have heard from the Telus delegation that they have tried other sites and they got turned down and there's a reason they got turned down at other sites. So they come to our site trying to get in. The science world is divided on this issue, there are concerns expressed about the RF waves that are given off by these cell tower sites. With cell phones we do have a personal choice whether we decide to carry them or not. But with a cell tower site within our parks, there is no choice."
"What followed after Samson's motion were statements by councillor after councillor that they heard the people of the area loud and clear and that they could no[t] support the Telus deal . . .
"You know what I have in my pocket? A radiation meter. And when I drive by the cell tower on Dogwood it changes from very little downtown even near the fire hall to going up high, high, high as I'm passing that tower. So I just feel nobody has the right to expose the community, the people to something they have not agreed to."
One Toronto woman shares her account of living with an extreme sensitivity to everyday technology
"Veronica Ciandre never imagined how drastically technology would change her life.
"For more than a decade, the film and television hairstylist had lived comfortably with her teenage daughter on the top floor of 2 Regal Rd., an apartment building near Dufferin and St. Clair. Then, in the fall of 2009, the landlord installed a dozen antennas on the roof as a way to get residents better cellular service.
"At first, Ciandre didn't think anything of it. . . .
Blake Levitt and Henry Lai 2010 (first posted December, 2011)
"The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof-mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land-use regulation. Local resistance from nearby residents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications service providers that international exposure standards will be followed. Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.
"The objective of this paper is to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting.
"Further epidemiology research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted. Symptoms reported today may be classic microwave sickness, first described in 1978. Non-ionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines."
One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.
Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.
Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.
Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.
Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.
Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.
Citizens For Safe Technology
"Wi-Fi: Is It Safe?"
Citizens for Safe Technology is a not-for-profit educational society made up of parents, grandparents, teachers, business professionals, scientists, politicians and lawyers concerned about the exponential increase in public exposure to harmful wireless technologies.
We believe a profound urgency exists to protect the unsuspecting public, especially children, youth and pregnant mothers from unsafe wireless technologies.
The content of the Citizens for Safe Technology website is provided for information purposes only. Information is subject to change without prior notice. Every effort has been taken to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, but no guarantees can be made.
Neither Citizens for Safe Technology nor its authors are liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site. The authors are not responsible for any contents linked or referred to from this website or any damages resulting from information on those sites.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.