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:
: School officials may be personally liable for exposing children to wireless radiation
"School districts, school boards and school medical health officers in Canada have been notified that Lloyd's of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." This includes the radio frequency radiation emitting from Wi-Fi and other wireless devices in schools.
"On February 18, 2015, the UK agent for Lloyd's stated, "the Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage . . . .
" . . . here are some other steps you might want to consider to protect your health. "If you're a parent, become an advocate at your kids school and in your neighborhood. Make your voice heard if you hear about cell towers going up in your neighborhood. These are big money-makers for the telecommunications companies but the money isn't worth the health risks.
"The insurance companies have understood the risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation. Make sure you have too and follow the tips above to protect yourself and your family as much as possible."
Lloyds of London - The Goddard Report
Interview with Sharon Noble - March 18, 2015
Lloyds of London Insurance is now excluding electromagnetic radiation injuries from their policies. School officials who have been made aware of the health risks from electro-magnetic radiation could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. Please note that in a court of law, one cannot use any Regulatory body such as Health Canada as an excuse for ignoring warnings.
School officials could be personally liable for exposing our children to microwave radiation in our schools.Parents for Safe Schools
Follow through re. Lloyd's insurance waiver: Parents and teachers have a right to know that the Wi-Fi being installed in schools throughout the province (even those with wired internet access) emits microwave radiation that has the potential to do great harm.
"School Districts, School Boards and School Medical Health Officers should know that Lloyd's of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, "Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." (Exclusion 32) This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the Commercial Wi-Fi Transmitters and Wireless Devices in our schools. Lloyd's of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. See the recent A&E renewal policy, which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. http://parentsforasafeschool.blogspot.ca/2015/02/wording-for-insurance-policy.html
"In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd's: "The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage."
"Will the individual people who approved the installation of a known 2b carcinogen in our schools be held personally liable for negligence? School Officials have refused to acknowledge the 1,000's of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that have been presented to them.
"Directors Insurance applies to people who are performing their duties "in good faith." But are they still protected when they have been Willfully Blind to the pleas from scientists and medical experts who have warned them over and over again of the health risks to our children? Will the fact that School Officials refuse to inform parents, teachers and students about the warnings in Safety Manuals and Disclaimers that come with wireless devices also make them liable? (Exclusion 27) Are these people guilty of not doing their job by providing our children an education in a safe school environment?
"In good faith" In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.
"Willful blindness" (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable. This information begs the question, why would an insurance company exclude injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were safe for children and the unborn?
Below is a another recent Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company:
Letter to Government from Sharon Noble - Director of Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in BC (includes A&E Policy Document)
Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,
RE: Lloyd's of London excludes coverage for claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
"Based on inaccurate information provided by ITRON, Health Canada and Dr. Perry Kendall, you have been telling people that there is no health risk due to prolonged exposure to radiation from smart meters on homes and wifi in school -- this despite your having received 100s of studies by independent researchers and many letters from scientists and doctors to the contrary.
"I am now forwarding information that should concern you even if the potential health problems these devices cause British Columbians doesn't. Even though I know that the province and BC Hydro self insure their insurance coverage, I suspect you have a stop loss agreement with protection for catastrophic claims. If this stop loss agreement doesn't already contain this waiver, soon it no doubt will exclude any claims associated with exposure to radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones, smart meters or wifi. Premier Clark, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Reimer,
"Lloyd's of London is one of the largest insurers in the world and often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no one else will. Attached is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd's:
"'The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage."
"This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.
"Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors' insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors' insurance applies when people are performing their duties "in good faith". It is hard to argue they are acting "in good faith" after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.
"Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made."
See page seven (7) #32 below for exclusion statement re electromagnetic fields:
to Richard Adams of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) from Eileen O'Connor, Director of Radiation Research Trust
Please read and share the following amazing letter by Eileen O'Connor of the UK's Radiation Research Trust. In it, she confronts Richard Adams for failing to disclose his conflicts of interest with utility companies that are pushing smart meters throughout Europe. Mr. Adams influenced members of the European Economic and Social Committee to consider that Electro-hypersensivity (EHS) is psychosomatic, and not a physical reaction to the RF/EMR. The estimates are that 22,000,000 to 37,000,000 people in Europe alone suffer EHS, but this could be low, and definitely will be increasing, just as it is in Canada.
Note that both The Coalition to Stop Smart Meters, and Citizens for Safe Technology are signatories.
SEE ALSO: FINAL RESOLUTION EESC
". . . The Radiation Research Trust reminds Mr Adams of his duty to respect the relevant convention rights applicable before the dissemination of smart meters and draws his attention to Section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act of public authorities 1998 which states clearly "it is unlawful for a Public Authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention Right." Article 6 "the right to a fair and impartial hearing" and article 8 "the right to respect for private and family life, home and possessions." The rights of people suffering with electrohypersensitivity are currently violated. It is time to apply the Convention established in the European Court of Human Rights. Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court and call for support for the right to life, prohibition of torture and prohibition of discrimination, this is a basic requirement in policy making. The European Convention on Human Rights (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from the state. . . .
"Many people are now looking for justice following the milestone legal cases being won related to EMFs. As examples: in 2011, the Spanish Labour Court in Madrid declared hypersensitivity, caused in part by EMF exposure, can cause permanent disability. In 2012, the Italian Supreme Court ruled the Insurance Body for Work (INAIL) must compensate a worker who developed a tumour due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones on the job. In 2013, the Australian government was ordered to pay claims for damaging the health of an employee with EMF sensitivity. Such rulings set a precedent for future conditions related to hypersensitivity to these microwaves.
"A new perspective is required by the telecommunications industry in order to better protect the general public, the environment and their own shareholders. The same holds true for governments. Potential risks are already being acknowledged in industry. . . .
"The clock has started ticking on liability and the time has arrived to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency . . .
"As of 18th February, 2015 European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) member Mr. Richard Adams absolutely, irrefutably has received the latest science from doctors and scientists from around the world on this issue.
"Future claims for damages to health as a result of the counter-opinion on electrohypersensitivity being accepted by the EESC could be founded on this letter . . .
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. . . .
represents important concern for the industry and its clients
Note that the highest risks showing in this insurance document are power supply loss and EMR effects.
"This Swiss Re SONAR report features emerging risk topics which could impact the insurance industry in the future. . . .
"Risks are a moving target. They are constantly changing or newly developing. That makes it difficult to quantify and judge them. The earlier the insurance industry starts adapting to emerging risks, the better prepared it will be for tomorrow's challenges. Foresight and knowledge sharing across stakeholders are essential to navigate into a future in which change might be the only constant that remains.
Terms and definitions
Emerging risk insights
November 29, 2012: disability payments, excessive cell phone use, Italy Supreme Court, RF radiation claims
Italy's Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that allowed disability payments to a businessman who claimed his brain tumor was tied to his excessive cell phone use. Can this ruling potentially lead to future litigation in the U.S. and elsewhere? Can it somehow alter the insurance landscape? Yes, it can. . . .
"Solutions to other emerging risks still need to be developed, but there is already a readily available no-cost solution for handling third-party worker over-exposure to RF radiation. While an immediate solution may not yet be available to protect those exposed to RF radiation from their handsets, a San Diego-based company, RF CHECK, Inc., has developed a solution to protect participants in the wireless ecosystem exposed to RF radiation at the numerous wireless antenna sites across the country. The wireless ecosystem includes service providers, and all those property owners hosting antenna sites, including government entities, healthcare, transportation and educational facilities. This viable solution will not only protect the third-party workers from exposure to RF radiation, but will also preserve a revenue stream for the insurance industry while improving customer service.
"The Italian court ruling could open the floodgates on RF radiation claims. Without adoption of any solutions, the insurance industry could be faced with a repeat of its asbestos experience, even as it avoids writing current coverage via exclusions. That would most certainly change the insurance landscape."
Can wireless companies get insurance for claims made based on adverse effects on users' health caused by their devices?
Insurance and Liability of Wireless Communication Carriers
This category contains information about whether wireless companies can get insurance for claims made based on adverse effects on users' health cause by their devices. The evidence is strong enough that the WHO, which tends to be a conservative organization, placed RF/EMF in the "possibly carcinogenic" category. And plaintiffs claiming their health was harmed by exposure have won recent court cases. In addition, awareness about the issue of RF from cell phones causing adverse health effects is getting better, so insurance companies are watching. Of course, as more people have adverse effects and identify them, awareness will naturally be increased. The 2011 categorization of RF as a possible carcinogen increases the concern as well.
In this category, we present documents from insurance companies, court cases that have awarded compensation for RF radiation adverse health effects, industry defense attorneys, actuaries, and from the news and web media. One telecom company, Airtel-Vodafone does not mince words. They claim limits of liability for any adverse RF health effects in their contract with the user, and maintain that they do not have to carry tort or liability insurance.
We have provided the entire Terms and Conditions from Airtel-Vodafone. In filing 9.21 Intervenors provide a brief on this category.
ALSO: Employer Liability for Employee Cell Phone Use on the Rise
Excerpted from Risk Monitor Volume 3 No. 3 - Elliot Whittier Insurance
"The principal of vicarious liability states that an employer is responsible for the harm caused by its employees if the employees are acting within the scope of their employment at the time an accident happened.
"Employers are facing increasing liability as a direct result from their employees' cell phone use. So why is this the next legal frontier? The number of lawsuits involving employer liability for traffic accidents caused by employee cell phone usage is steadily growing, as well as lawsuits based on health problems associated with cell phone use. . . .
ALSO: Insurance and Liability of Wireless Communication Carriers
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.