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:
Letter to Honorable Senator Rosalyn Baker re cell phone radiation and an upcoming decision re warning label
Hawaii could be first state to require by law that consumers are made aware of potentially dangerous cell phone radiation emissions from wireless devices with cell phone radiation warning labels.
The following letter to Hawaiian Senator Rosalyn Baker is signed by 16 experts on the subject of cell phone radiation.
"Dear Senator Baker,
"We commend the Senate Committee on Health for having passed SB2571. Recent scientific research conducted affirms the wisdom of this legislation. Therefore, in the interest of the citizens of Hawaii please allow this bill to be heard and hopefully passed. . . .
RELATED NEWS ITEM:
Hawaii Senator Calls for Cell Phone Radiation Warning Labels on Cell Phones
San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) February 20, 2014
"According to RF Safe, Hawaii could be first state to require by law that consumers are made aware of potentially dangerous cell phone radiation emissions from wireless devices with cell phone radiation warning labels."
"To raise awareness of cell phone radiation, D-Sen. Josh Green of Kona, Ka'u introduced Senate Bill SB 2571, a measure calling for cell phones sold in Hawaii to come with a prominent health warning -- similar to what smokers see on the sides of cigarette packages to warn them of danger.
"Sen. Green not only wants people to think about that electromagnetic radiation but also to change their cell phone habits because of it.
"Green, who chairs the Health Committee, said he introduced the bill because he thinks consumers need to be directed to radiation warnings already listed within the device.
"The original version of Senate Bill SB 2571 would have required the label to read, "This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body."
"Green said he took the language from the warning within his iPhone. He said he is open to the size of the label being reduced. In it's current form, Senate Bill SB 2571 would require cellphones sold in Hawaii to contain a warning label covering nearly a third of the back of the device. . . .
RELATED LETTER TO HAWAIIAN SENATOR ROSALYN BAKER
Report, Perspectives and Summary regarding environmental sensitivities
Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities (86 pages)
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
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."
Refusal of Unsafe Work
3.12 Procedure for refusal
(1) A person must not carry out or cause to be carried out any work process or operate or cause to be operated any tool, appliance or equipment if that person has reasonable cause to believe that to do so would create an undue hazard to the health and safety of any person.
(2) A worker who refuses to carry out a work process or operate a tool, appliance or equipment pursuant to subsection (1) must immediately report the circumstances of the unsafe condition to his or her supervisor or employer.
(3) A supervisor or employer receiving a report made under subsection (2) must immediately investigate the matter and
(a) ensure that any unsafe condition is remedied without delay, or
(b) if in his or her opinion the report is not valid, must so inform the person who made the report.
(4) If the procedure under subsection (3) does not resolve the matter and the worker continues to refuse to carry out the work process or operate the tool, appliance or equipment, the supervisor or employer must investigate the matter in the presence of the worker who made the report and in the presence of
(a) a worker member of the joint committee,
(b) a worker who is selected by a trade union representing the worker, or
(c) if there is no joint committee or the worker is not represented by a trade union, any other reasonably available worker selected by the worker.
(5) If the investigation under subsection (4) does not resolve the matter and the worker continues to refuse to carry out the work process or operate the tool, appliance or equipment, both the supervisor, or the employer, and the worker must immediately notify an officer, who must investigate the matter without undue delay and issue whatever orders are deemed necessary.3.13 No discriminatory action
(1) A worker must not be subject to discriminatory action as defined in section 150 of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act because the worker has acted in compliance with section 3.12 or with an order made by an officer.
(2) Temporary assignment to alternative work at no loss in pay to the worker until the matter in section 3.12 is resolved is deemed not to constitute discriminatory action.
Note: The prohibition against discriminatory action is established in the Workers Compensation Act Part 3, Division 6, sections 150 through 153.
Disclaimer: The Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. ("WorkSafeBC") publishes the online version of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation ("OHS Regulation") in accordance with its mandate under the Workers Compensation Act to provide information and promote public awareness of occupational health and safety matters. The online OHS Regulation is not the official version of the OHS Regulation, which may be purchased from Crown Publications.
WorkSafeBC endeavours to update the online OHS Regulation as soon as possible following any legislative amendments. However, WorkSafeBC does not warrant the accuracy or the completeness of the online OHS Regulation, and neither WorkSafeBC nor its board of directors, employees or agents shall be liable to any person for any loss or damage of any nature, whether arising out of negligence or otherwise, arising from the use of the online OHS Regulation.
Employers are legally obligated to make a copy of the Workers' Compensation Actand the OHS Regulation readily available for review by workers. The circumstances under which WorkSafeBC may consider an employer's providing access to electronic versions of the Act and OHS Regulation to have satisfied this obligation are described in Guideline G-D3-115(2)(f).
A reminder for those of you with analogs.
In lieu of a meter reader, call your own analog readings in to BC Hydro. The wait time will vary, but you will speak to a customer rep who will take the the information.
For FortisBC customers, the Fortis contact information on our websites and, when the time comes, we will remind you again.
Read your Analog Meter (Instructions & Website Links) here:
EMPOWERMENT BEGINS AT HOME
BC Hydro- email@example.com
https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/contact.html (Subject: Billing)
FortisBC - https://secure.fortisbc.com/custInfo/Login/listForm.do?listForm=10
ANALOGUE METER READING DEMO
Worker's Report of Injury or Occupational Disease: for presentation to employer, provided here so employers can give to workers who are experiencing adverse symptoms from RF exposure (Wi-Fi) in the workplace
"Section 53(3) of the Workers Compensation Act requires that, where a worker is fit, and on request of the employer, they must provide the employer with particulars of the injury or occupational disease on a report prescribed by WorkSafeBC and supplied to the worker by the employer. This is the report prescribed. If requested by employer, please complete this report as it appears.
"Submit directly to employer. Do not submit to WorkSafeBC.
"This report should be completed by the injured worker if fit to do so. It can be completed by another individual for signature by the injured worker."
Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OH&SR) Sections 3.12 and 3.13
The following has been excerpted from the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation at WorkSafeBC's website.
3.12 Procedure for refusal (1) A person must not carry out or cause to be carried out any work process or operate or cause to be operated any tool, appliance or equipment if that person has reasonable cause to believe that to do so would create an undue hazard to the health and safety of any person. (emphasis added)
Join us in resisting "smart-meter" harm and extortion
This group is fighting on grounds similar to ours in B.C.
Their motto: Resistance .... because harm is not an option and extortion is not a choice.
Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
January 27, 2014: "Our precedent-setting Maine investigation into the safety of smart meters continues with the recent filing of final legal briefs at the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). What remains is a final report from MPUC staff to the Commissioners, the Commissioner's decision, and possibly a separate proceeding on remedy. Win or lose, appeals are likely. . . .
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.