Sheryl Ubelacker, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 11, 2015 Wireless devices such as smartphones and tablets have certainly made staying in touch and plugging into the digital world easier and more convenient. But the increasingly ubiquitous nature of the technology is also raising concerns about possible adverse health effects from exposure to the electromagnetic radio-frequency waves that these devices emit. Worries about exposure to EM-RF fields were recently raised before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health, which heard three days of submissions from international medical experts, advocacy groups and industry players. The all-party committee will now prepare a report on [&hellip
Scientists and safety advocates say Health Canada new rules do not take into account many new studies on the safety of cellphones and other wireless devices. Paul Christopher Webster, CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal), May 7, 2015 Federal parliamentarians concluded three hearings into Health Canada’s safety regulations for cellphones and other wireless devices by asking for a detailed analysis of numerous recent cancer studies that indicate far tougher safety regulations may be warranted. The studies in question were not acknowledged in the scientific review, Safety Code 6 (2015) — Rationale, which exclusively released to CMAJ by Health Canada. The Safety Code 6 guideline, which was released Mar. 13, states [&hellip
Technology makes life easier for most – but not so much for radio astronomers. Belinda Smith explains Excerpt “Sometimes, though, goodwill doesn’t cut it. Astronomers at the 45-metre telescope at the Nobeyama radio observatory in Nagano, Japan, have tried to detect waves emitted by vibrating complex organic molecules – which may be related to the formation of life. Unfortunately, the radio frequency those molecules emit exactly matches the frequency used by car-mounted anti-collision radar systems. “Anti-collision radar is quite powerful by radio astronomy standards and may even damage our equipment,” Lockman says. “It’s much stronger than the incidental radiation that leaks [&hellip
By Sandi Maurer, Director, EMF Safety Network April 13, 2015 http://emfsafetynetwork.org/overview-of-pgecpuc-emails-on-smart-meters/ PG&E deployed over nine million utility “smart meters” on homes and businesses in California. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supported the multibillion dollar deployment despite lawsuits and complaints about overcharges, privacy and security risks, fires and explosions, and health problems from the pulsed electromagnetic radiation (RF) smart meters emit. The CPUC is responsible for regulating the utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service. Instead, they partnered with PG&E and marketing companies on a smart meter propaganda campaign. CPUC President Michael Peevey intentionally delayed the legal process for years so [&hellip
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/light-bulbs-that-kill/ The politician – Nick Rahall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Rahall) -” introduced the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which banned incandescent light bulbs. Despite introducing the legislation, Rahall voted against the bill on final passage. As result of the legislation, as of January 1, 2014, incandescent light bulbs between 40 watts and 150 watts are illegal to manufacture or import.” Nich Rahall is now retired having served 19 terms in the House of Representatives on an annual pension of $139,000.
Two major Insurance companies, Lloyds of London and Swiss Re will no longer cover Medical expenses incurred du to exposure to electromagnetic fields. Here is the Lloyd’s Risk Index 2013: http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/Files/News%20and%20Insight/Risk%20Insight/Risk%20Index%202013/Report/Lloyds%20Risk%20Index%202013report100713.pdf Here’s the Swiss Re emerging risk report from 2014: http://media.swissre.com/documents/SONAR_2014.pdf In 2011, Lloyds had a similar document to Swiss Re: called Lloyd’s Risk Index 2011. http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/Files/News%20and%20Insight/360%20Risk%20Insight/Lloyds_Risk_Index_2011.pdf The 2011 document listed Harmful Effects of New Technology (e.g. nanotechnology, EMF) at 38 of 50 of the Top 50 Priority Risks in North America (the scores were similar in other parts of the world) [Appendix, Chart 16]. This score was virtually exactly the same risk as Climate Change [&hellip
Electric “smart” meters were installed in Cindy deBac’s Scottsdale, Arizona, neighborhood in 2012. She recalls the day a new meter was mounted on her home as a sort of digital Pearl Harbor attack. “I’ve never been so sick in my life,” she says. “Nausea, a crushing migraine headache, and painful heart palpitations laid me low right away.” Healthy and exuberant before the installation, deBac became unable to sleep normally. She soon became exhausted and tearfully anxious as she struggled with rashes and a chronically racing heart. For respite she spent nights away in her car. One of her dogs died [&hellip
Powerful recent presentation by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe on Electromagnetic Radiation, Health and Children 2014. Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe is the founder of PHIRE (Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment), Trustee Radiation Research Trust (RRT), Medical Advisor ES-UK and Board Member CPTF.