The question of the health authorities hiding behind corporate corrupted, global bodies such as WHO and ICNIRP is a general one, not only applicable to Canada. The context for this letter is an attempt by Martin Weatheral to bring about a criminal investigation into Health Canada. This approach is justified, as this letter makes clear, by the stonewalling of these authorities, their refusal to take into account either public concern or a growing body of scientific evidence going back for decades. Activists and concerned citizens would do well to emulate this approach elsewhere..
For years Health Canada has had evidence from various sources that radiation below Safety Code 6’s allowable limits cause significant harm. Yet both of you and others in Health Canada continue to give the public false assurances that the contrary is true. You both have hidden behind WHO’s and ICNIRP’s guidelines which, they admit, apply only to thermal radiation and are not protective or applicable to radiation from wireless devices, such as cell transmitters, phones, and WiFi. You continue to recommend that provincial medical officers ignore independent health studies which show that children are especially vulnerable to this radiation and encourage proliferation of WiFi and smart meters in every community.
It is with faint hope that I send you yet one more piece of evidence showing that WHO and ICNIRP are colluding with industry to maintain, or even increase, the current radiation exposure limits. In response to each letter I’ve sent with peer-reviewed, gold standard studies showing harm to DNA, heart, fertility, and the blood brain barrier I received a form letter telling me that Safety Code 6 is safe. I expect nothing different with regard to this letter. Instead I am ensuring that you cannot say you were not aware of this information when you are called forward to testify, be it in a court of law or before a higher power.
Dr. Don Maisch has spent decades researching these 2 agencies, following the infiltration by industry, the money spent to ensure the public’s interest will be suppressed for the sake of profit. The same persons use the same terminology, e.g. risk assessment and weight of evidence, to justify the agencies’ actions. Over the years we’ve all learned what these terms mean to them and to Health Canada:
– Risk assessment means: Do the financial costs justify taking action? Until the health costs in dollars and cents outweigh the financial costs of doing things in a safer way, nothing should be done.( A cost-benefit analysis at its basest.) How much is the life of a child, or ten, worth? Compare this with the cost of putting a hydro line underground? If only a few hundred additional people get cancer from cell transmitters, that can’t justify the cost of requiring fiber optic cables instead of towers near homes and schools.
– Weight of evidence: The industry will have many studies produced showing no harm. They will outnumber the independent studies which show harm. This will be used as evidence to support the statement that there is no evidence of harm as if a study showing no harm negates a study showing harm. (The “scale of justice”?) The public will never realize that if something is safe there would never be a study showing harmful effects.
You and Health Canada can no longer hide behind WHO and ICNIRP. Their bias and conflict of interest is well documented. Now, what justification will you use to continue to allow Canadians to be exposed to dangerous environments?
I look forward to hearing your responses.
Sharon Noble
Address provided
In These New Times 