On July 9, 2014, 52 international scientists submitted a declaration to Health Canada, urgently calling on government to minimize the public’s exposure to the radiation emitted by wireless devices including cell and cordless phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters and baby monitors.
Currently, RF exposure guidelines in four countries. China, Russia, Italy, and Switzerland, based on biological effects, are 100 times more stringent than Canadian and U.S. guidelines.
Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
[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.
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.
The World Health Organization classified electromagnetic fields at both extremely low frequency (2001) and radiofrequency (2011) ranges as a “Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans” and included reviews and studies reporting low-intensity biological effects.
Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline does not protect people.
Currently, RF exposure guidelines in various countries (China, Russia, Italy, Switzerland), based on biological effects, are 100 times more stringent than the guidelines based on an outdated understanding of RFR that relies primarily on thermal effects that includes Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Following a recent review of Safety Code 6 (Royal Society of Canada Report entitled, “A Review of Safety Code 6 (2013): Health Canada’s Safety Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields”), Health Canada has decided not to lower the existing guidelines and arbitrarily to include a maximum exposure that is 1000 times higher than the 6-minute average exposure.
Furthermore, Health Canada does not adhere to the Precautionary Principle used by states when serious risks to the public or the environment exist but lack scientific consensus.
Many Canadians and people worldwide share a growing perception of risk due to the proliferation of RF sources encountered in daily life and reports of adverse health effects. Since the start of the Wireless Age in the 1990s, health studies show more people reacting adversely to electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation. Epidemiological studies show links between RF exposure and cancers, neurological disorders, hormonal changes, symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and more. Laboratory studies show increased cancers, abnormal sperm, learning and memory deficits, and heart irregularities.
People who suffer from functional impairment due to RF exposure and those who prefer to live, work and raise their children in a low EMF environment are increasingly unable to find such places. Worker productivity, even the capacity to make a living, is diminishing. Some people are being forced into an isolated, nomadic lifestyle, with few resources to sustain them. The medical community in North America is largely unaware of the biological responses to RF exposure and does not know how to treat those who have become ill. The typical methods to alleviate symptoms and promote healing are not working due, in part, to ubiquitous exposure.
Our urgent call for public health protection.
The public’s health and the health of the environment are threatened by ever-evolving RF emitting technologies, without due consideration for what the potential cumulative impacts on biological systems are likely to be in the future.
We urgently call upon Health Canada . . .
i) to intervene in what we view as an emerging public health crisis;
ii) to establish guidelines based on the best available scientific data including studies on cancer and DNA damage, stress response, cognitive and neurological disorders, impaired reproduction, developmental effects, learning and behavioural problems among children and youth, and the broad range of symptoms classified as EHS; and
iii) To advise Canadians to limit their exposure and especially the exposure of children.
Dr. Franz Adlekofer, MD, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Dr. Bahriye Sırav Aral, Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Turkey
Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Prof, Med. Oncol. Paris Univ. Hospital; Dir., European Cancer & Environment Research Inst., France
Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, USA
Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Faculty of Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Dr. Ayşe G. Canseven, Gazi University, Medical Faculty, Biophysics Department, Turkey
Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, USA
Dr. Simona Carrubba, PhD, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo (Neurology), USA
Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Dr. Adilza C. Dode, PhD, MSc, Prof. EMF Pollution Control, Environ. Eng. Dept, Minas Methodist Univ. Ctr. Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Dr. Meric Arda Esmekaya, PhD, Gazi University, Biophysics Department, Turkey
Dr. Arzu Firlarer, MSc, PhD, Senior Researcher & Instructor, Occupational Health and Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD, Postdoc. Research Assoc., Dept. Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Dr. Christos Georgiou, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Dr. Livio Giuliani, PhD, Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florenze-Bozen, Italy
Prof. Yury Grigoriev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia
Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario la fe Valencia, Spain
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Dr. Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Dr. Paul Héroux, PhD, Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University Medical; InvitroPlus Labs., Royal Victoria Hospital, Canada
Dr. Donald Hillman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, USA
Dr. Martha R. Herbert, PhD, MD, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
Dr. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Tohoku University, Japan
Dr. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Florian M. Koenig, DrSc, Director of Fl. König Enterprises GmbH, Sferics & Meteorosensitivity Research Inst., Germering, Germany
Dr. Kavindra Kumar Kesari, MBA, PhD; Res. Sci., Dept. Environmental Sciences, Univ. Eastern Finland, Finland: Jaipur Nat. Univ., India
Prof. Girish Kumar, IIT Bombay – microwaves and antennas, India
Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, USA
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc, Editor-in-Chief: Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland; Prof, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Ying Li, PhD, InVitroPlus Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital McGill University Medicine, Canada
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Löscher, Head, Dept. Pharmacology & Toxicology, Univ. Veterinary Medicine; Center for Neuroscience, Hannover, Germany
Dr. Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Prof. Emeritus, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Dr. Marko Markov, PhD, Research International Buffalo, USA
Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
Dr. Anthony Miller, MD, University of Toronto, Canada
Dr. Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, PhD, USA
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Speaker Environmental Medicine, Austrian Medical Association; Public Health, Salzburg Government, Austria
Dr. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Dr. Elcin Ozgur, PhD, Biophysics Department, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
Dr. Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Dr. Michael A. Persinger, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences & Human Studies, Laurentian University, Canada
Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Center for Excellence in Science, Prof, Dept. Chem. & Biochem., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA
Dr Timur Saliev, MD, PhD, Life Sciences, Nazarbayev Univ., Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK
Dr. Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, Medical Faculty, Gazi University; Founding Chair, Biophysics Dept, WHO EMF Advisory Committee, Turkey
Dr. Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, PhD, Head of Inst., Environ. Physics; Former Head, Clinical Research, Medical Univ. Luebeck, Germany
Dr. Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society, Greece
Date of Issuance: July 9, 2014
Press release from Dr. Joel Moskowitz:
In addition, twenty Canadian physicians signed a statement July 9 calling on Health Canada to raise awareness about microwave radiation impacts and minimize exposure in schools and other places where children are commonly exposed http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada-english.pdf
18 thought on “Scientists Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure”
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
Shared on Facebook
Reblogged this on Today,s Thought.
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
Scientists Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
What exactly is different in the countries with more stringent guidelines? Are the devices themselves held to a higher standard? Is use of devices disallowed in certain areas? What else?
That’s one way to take care of the First Amendment – ensure that such speech is reduced to ten-second soundbytes, with naught of substance.
I live in NY on Long Island, PSEG is beginning the 2.0 program. When I called to ask about it they told me it was advanced grid technology. I asked if there is a OPT out, they said the program doesn’t start until 2015, so no OPT out yet. I can’t believe I have to be exposed to this, even if I opt out I am still exposed my my neighbors.
Look into shielding paint and shielding fabrics (for curtains, etc.) at http://www.LessEMF.com. I know it is ridiculous to have to spend money (and these products are not cheap) to protect yourself when you never asked to have this technology in the first place, but it is possible to shield effectively and minimize your exposure while at home. When you’re out and about, it’s a different story. The telecom industry is intent on ruling the world at this point in the Earth’s journey.
And at the same time celebrity model Cindy Crawford reports she is pulling her kids out of school because of the elevated levels of “PCB’S” in the classroom. She says it can be found in the window caulking,etc and doesn’t want to put her kids at risk for future problems. She didn’t voice similar concerns about all the radiation exposure from wireless devices.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
This can all be broken down into a numbers problem. When you have more than half of the population on the takers side, something must be done to reduce their numbers. A small percentage of the takers have contributed to their benefits by working or serving in the Armed Forces, but we all know that money was spent long ago.
The scientists and doctors are handsomely paid to perform what ever tptb deem important for their agenda and are guaranteed immunity from the genocide they create.
[…] out a politico. And yet, the American public seems to prefer to remain blissfully unaware of many prominent and ubiquitous dangers to their […]
[…] Scientists Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure […]
[…] Scientists Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure […]
The article makes the following claim
“Currently, RF exposure guidelines in four countries. China, Russia, Italy, and Switzerland, based on biological effects, are 100 times more stringent than Canadian and U.S. guidelines.”
Isnt the Us limit close to normal levels from mobile phones?
100 times lower would mean no mobile phones of present construction are allowed for the four countries mentioned?
Consequently the anglosaxons have a better signal to noise ratio when they are using advanced spying in China than the other way round.
The more countries bring down background levels the better for spying.
I see a growing problem stemming from the infrastructure and the lack of oversight and with the inadequate FCC regulations. If this problem of bodily injury from accidental encounters with cellular antennas isn’t addressed I fear it will grow out of control.
Hi #Anonymous here..:) We see u have deep interrest in the case of Smart meter comming all into our homes and apartments..:( This changing right now….. Visit us at https://www.smartmetersdanmark.com/ thank you so much for fight this smart/grid…:)