Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Letters/Initiatives - Health
HEALTH LETTERS and INITIATIVES: INTRODUCTION to TOPIC Models, Springboards, Ideas
To streamline your search, anywhere on the website, for a specific topic, word or phrase, please use the white search bar located under the Action Kits below.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
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
Addressed to Medical Professionals. Useful to all. Updated July 19, 2014
The following package is for those who wish to approach their doctors with information regarding the possible health risks from non-thermal microwave radiation. It contains links organized into specific health effect categories. These links can be printed out according to personal areas of need or concern, and used to start a dialogue with doctors who may not as yet have associated certain health conditions with EMF or RF exposure.
The introductory letter on pages 1 and 2 contains a link to the entire list, and may be useful to your doctor as a reference tool.
"Dear Medical Professional:
"Your patient has asked us for support in providing you with information regarding the possible health risks from non-thermal microwave radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, recently reclassified by the WHO/IARC as a Class 2B, possible human carcinogen.
"This WHO risk category also includes lead, DDT, chloroform, and dioxane, and is relevant to all wireless devices emitting radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including cordless phones, cell phones, IPads, Wi-Fi routers, wireless games, baby monitors, and smart meters . . .
"Many doctors have already given medical advice to their patients by way of a medical letter or note on a prescription form stating that the patient should avoid, for medical reasons, living in a residence or residential complex at which a wireless meter is operating in order to maintain their health or avoid aggravating a medical condition. This medical advice stating the health condition and advising the patient that they should avoid ongoing exposure to wireless radiofrequency and smart meter emissions will allow your patient to participate in the Human Rights Action currently underway. We are hopeful that the individual's right to protect their health as advised by their medical doctor will be upheld by the Human Rights Tribunal, and this forced exposure within their own home to undesirable microwave radiofrequency emissions will be replaced with reasonable and respectful accommodation by BC Hydro . . . "
Information categories contained in this package:
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: . . .
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. . . .
includes Wi-Fi in the Workplace: Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) Provincial Health and Safety Committee
A position regarding the use of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation,
including WiFi, in the Workplace
Researched and presented by the OECTA Provincial Health and Safety Committee
There are growing health and safety concerns regarding the widespread use of technology, such as cellular phones and wireless computer networking (Wi-Fi), which produce non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. It is estimated that at least 3 per cent of the population has an environmental sensitivity to the radiation that is emitted by these devices and, as a result, experience serious immediate physical/biological effects when exposed.
As has been the case with other known societal health and safety issues, such as exposure to cigarette smoke or asbestos, the health effects of unprecedented long term exposure to this radiation may not be known for some time. Widespread use of, or exposure to, wireless communication devices and WiFi technology in Ontario schools, can be positioned as a potential workplace hazard.
This paper examines what is currently known about the impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, reviews the implications it can have for Ontario schools, including OECTA members, and makes recommendations to the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association on the issue.
Table of Contents
May 2014 - Electromagnetic Radiation Awareness Month
Suggested revisions to SCENIHR re their "Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)" 2013
SCENIHR = Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
The Royal Society of Canada's (RSC) Safety Code 6 (SC6) report to Health Canada failed to recommend significant changes to SC6 guidelines of exposure of the public to radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
Attached is a page numbered copy of the BioInitative Working Group Comments (April 16, 2014 - 365 pages)
April 16, 2014 - Update
"New Studies Show Health Risks from Wireless Tech: Warnings from the BioInitiative Working Group/ University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York /April 16, 2014 . . .
"The BioInitiative Working Group says evidence for health risk from wireless tech is growing stronger and warrants immediate action. The Group released a mid-year update covering new science studies from 2012 to 2014. . .
"Federal programs like ConnectED and E-Rate are calling for wireless classrooms while ignoring the health evidence. Hyperactivity, concentration problems, anxiety, irritability, disorientation, distracted behavior, sleep disorders, and headaches are reported in clinical studies. . . .
A briefing on EHS for Health Professionals, Research Scientists, Government Officials and concerned members of the Public - November 27, 2013
"My name is Steven Weller and I wrote this Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) case study that is included with this covering statement with the hope it may be of benefit to those who either find themselves in a similar position to me, or, maybe just interested in a getting a better understanding of what EHS is and the likely cause.
"The study documents my personal journey towards self-diagnosis as being EHS, the ensuing questions it raised, along with information which might assist fellow sufferers to better cope with a condition which, until relatively recently, was unknown on our planet.
"Initially, I wasn't even aware that there was such a condition as EHS. It was purely by accident that I discovered that I was sensitive to certain radiofrequencies (RF). I have 25 years' experience working in Information Technology. Radiofrequencies have been a significant part of the landscape for me for a number of years.
"At the time I first made the connection between my symptoms and exposure to certain technology, it was a simply a matter of making a few minor adjustments, and I was able to manage my condition. Life continued as normal. The mandatory rollout of wireless smart meters in my neighbourhood unfortunately changed all this.
"I was torpedoed onto a path which has involved me in spending countless fruitless hours seeking answers from the medical establishment and government agencies, innumerable amounts of time conducting my own research, followed by a quest to seek answers from the authorities who pronounce upon the safety of our RF standards. A high level of protection is offered I am told.
"I have been sorely disappointed by their response. Unfortunately, Governments and the Industry appear to be focused only on the perceived benefits of these technologies (and money) without considering any potential long term health implications that they may bring.
"We are bio-electrical systems. Our bodies do not incorporate elaborate shielding and we are not impervious or hardened against this form of radiation, which today can be billions or more times higher than what occurs naturally. Representatives of the industry and RF Standard bodies often assert that there is "no clear or conclusive" scientific evidence regarding the biological effects of low level or "non-thermal" RF exposures, a statement that has also been continually recycled for many years. But in actuality, a large body of scientific research documentation exists that shows RF exposures at low (non thermal) levels can produce adverse effects that have serious health implications.
Many countries around the world including Australia have adopted ICNIRP 1998 RF Guidelines. In an ICNIRP Statement released in 2002 which is obfuscated with a document title of "philosophy" http://www.icnirp.de/documents/philosophy.pdf clearly says on p 546
"Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents...." that "Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population." (NIR - Non Ionising Radiation) The World Health Organisation also has the following to say about current ICNIRP RF "Guidelines"
"What guidelines cannot account for...
"...Guidelines are set for the average population and cannot directly address the requirements of a minority of potentially more sensitive people...." Source: http://www.who.int/peh- emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index4.html
It is obvious in my eyes that there is no desire to uncover the truth because of the legal implications to governments and the industry around the world. It seems that we who are EHS are collateral damage in the name of progress.
It's been a lonely and frustrating journey. Hopefully, this study might make the road a little easier for those that follow. Sadly, with rapidly escalating levels of electro-smog around the globe, I believe these numbers will undoubtedly be increasing.
In closing I would like to quote Dr Julian Hollis:
"Science is all about free investigation in order to discover facts, regardless of popular 'consensus'. Theories are always open to and under review and data are re-examined; no matter how much 'truth' is valued; even ideologically protected. There is also a vital role to be played through constructive imagination...what would happen if? There is always a need to remain fearlessly open to new, unexpected, even unwelcome discoveries. Past history records over and over again unwelcome discoveries that have forced change: thus those scientists brave enough to challenge vested interests or systems of mass belief have usually been dismissed, sidelined; even brutalized" ('Geology of Change' class notes 10th February 2012 provided to me by an associate).
"Whilst the above statements are in the context of the Earth Sciences, I would suggest the comments are perhaps even more relevant to the debate currently raging within the scientific community over evidence of adverse effects in the non-ionizing area of the electromagnetic spectrum. . . .
The Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Pollution
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.