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:
DARIUSZ LESZCZYNSKI, PHD
" . . . Any person, scientist or non-scientist, before claiming that there is no risk from cell phone radiation
and dismissing the science as bogus, should remember that it is necessary to study all possible
options of effects before making such statements - option of co-effects of cell phone radiation and
chemicals was not studied yet.
"In conclusion, I consider that currently the scientific evidence is sufficient to classify cell phone radiation as a probable human carcinogen - 2A category in IARC scale. Time will show whether 'the probable' will change into' the certain'. However, it will take tens of years before issue is really resolved. In the mean time we should implement the Precautionary Principle. There is a serious reason for doing so."
with regards to Scientific Review of Draft Safety Code 6 (2014), Canada's Safety Guidelines for Safe Exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation (submitted by Margaret Friesen M.Sc.)
" . . . At least 140 studies are missing from Health Canada's rationale document and literature review, as well as the report from the Royal Society of Canada and the largest, most recent European review. Of these 140 studies, 103 studies (74%) were submitted by C4ST to Health Canada in 2013, yet were still omitted.
"The scientific basis of Safety Code 6 is clearly in disarray. Meanwhile, C4ST regularly hears from Canadians who report being sickened and disabled by exposures to radiofrequency/microwave radiation. The immediate response should be to take measures to ensure that exposures are recognized, and As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This involves public education, training of medical personnel, minimization of use of wireless technologies in schools and workplaces, safe areas for those with EHS (and to prevent development of EHS), safer technological advancements and more. We present some preliminary recommendations to accomplish this. . . .
Illustrated Commentary on Access Requirements in the 2006 British Columbia Building Code
People with ES / EHS are currently prevented/hindered from accessing certain buildings and public areas.
From the Office of Housing and Construction Standards
"It is important for users of the B.C. Building Code to be reminded that the presence and participation of persons with disabilities in our communities is significant. The percentage of persons with disabilities of all ages will increase, especially over the next few decades. This growth will include persons with all types of disabilities, each type having their own specific design needs.
"The roles of persons with disabilities in society are ever expanding and need to be recognized. Not only are persons with disabilities receivers of services, they are also providers. For example, they are students and educators, employees and employers, shoppers and merchants, spectators and athletes, residents of buildings and designers of buildings, to name a few. They participate in all aspects of community life and in doing so, utilize all types of buildings. Users of the code, specifically the sections dealing with building requirements for persons with disabilities, must be aware of the strong impact that proper application of the code has on the day-to-day lives of people with disabilities. Accessibility is paramount. Thoughtful and careful use of this handbook in applying the building requirements for persons with disabilities will benefit all members of the community. . .
"1.1.3. . . . Access or accessible means that a person with disabilities is, without assistance, able to approach, enter, pass to and from, and make use of an area and its facilities, or either of them. . . .
Excellent graphic example of the dangers of Smart Meters and wireless radiation. First posted January 11, 2014
letter signed by renowned scientists and physicians urging Health Canada to stop denying that evidence exists that shows harm.
Also Declaration: SCIENTISTS call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
Canada's Safety Code 6 Guideline is fundamentally flawed.
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 is based on an obsolete account and analysis of RFR research and has disregarded or minimized certain recent studies, such as cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at RFR intensities below the existing Code 6 Guideline. . . .
date of issuance July 9, 2014
[Note: This includes-but is not limited to-radiofrequency radiation-emitting devices, such as cell phones and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors.]
We are scientists engaged in the study of electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health and safety. We have serious concerns regarding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Guideline. . . .
Also: Declaration: DOCTORS Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation
Submission to Health Canada regarding Safety Code 6 Draft
"Prevent Cancer Now is a Canadian National group with over 5000 followers, working to eliminate preventable causes of cancer.
"Prevent Cancer Now sees that today's science indicates a high level of certainty that radiofrequency radiation from communication devices contributes to tumours. Sufficient evidence exists linking radiation from wireless communications devices to cancer, to justify Health Canada reducing the exposure standards under Safety Code 6, and taking steps to minimize exposures of the young and most vulnerable. Based on our analysis of missing information and shortcomings of the human epidemiology information relied upon by Health Canada, we make the following recommendations, addressing both Safety Code 6 and ancillary actions for the consideration of Health Canada: . . .
From Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure - Magda Havas editorial
After reading the editorial at the link, click through at "Physicians" and at "Research Scientists" to land on the click-throughs where you can read the actual declarations and see the names of the MDs (Canadian) and Scientists (Canadian and others) who submitted them.
The declarations are not too lengthy and they are easy to read.
Letter to Governments - Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in B.C.
We need to put pressure on our provincial health authorities to help protect us and our families from the RF proliferation and to stop misleading us by saying that everything is fine.
" . . . This is outrageous. The public is being lulled into believing that the wireless gadgets they love and that they give their toddlers are safe. This is wrong - both in fact and morally.
"It is time for the provincial government to take responsibility for stopping this exposure. It has the duty to protect our health and it has the right to establish exposure limits that are precautionary.
"I ask our elected officials to review this information and join together to demand that correct information be given to the public. Demand that our health authorities do their jobs, tell the truth, and stop misleading the public.
"For additional reference please consider a letter signed 52 world renowned experts, asking for Health Canada to finally acknowledge the evidence that many other countries have based their guidelines on: http://c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/scientific-declaration-to-health-canada-english.pdf
Video submission to Health Canada, explaining RF mechanisms and standards
Paul Heroux, director of the Occupation Health program at McGill University's Faculty of Medicine recently submitted this video to Health Canada which is reviewing its Safety Code 6 guideline on radiofrequency exposure.
Click on the link below to read an article from Microwave News, a well-respected journal on EMR and EMF research, about new research showing extremely low magnetic fields can have health effects.
NB: Of real interest are comments about the people at McGill University who call themselves "skeptics", funded by multi-millionaire Lorne Trottier who spends millions trying to discredit any scientist who shows that RF radiation from wireless devices is dangerous. Any evidence of harm would endanger Trottier's investments. He has bought scientists at McGill - a discredit to this university.
McGill University Professor Proposes Radical New Outlook
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.