Repacholi has also participated in studies which showed carcinogenic effects from non-ionising EM radiation. This is further evidence of foreknowledge of dangers to public health on the part of the foremost defender of the safety of wireless telecommunications. I don’t know what Havas means by “scientific evidence”: does she want experiments on children? In any event, there is plenty of evidence that wi-fi and similar types of radiation are doing harm. Barry Trower is telling the world about it and in France it is being removed from public buildings. It’s not a question of waiting for the scientists, but of making our own judgemnt on the basis available evidence and our own experience and taking action to protect ourselves and those near to us.

Magda Havas

31st August, 2010

Dr. Michael Repacholi, prior to becoming the Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organization, was involved in formulating Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline for microwave radiation.  In 1977, he and Maria Stuchly gave a talk at the I.E.E.E. meeting in Toronto entitled “Emission and Exposure Standards for Microwave Radiation.

In this presentation Repacholi and Stuchly proposed a Canadian maximum permissible level (MPL) for microwave radiation that was between the then U.S. guideline (10 mW/cm²) and the Russian guideline (0.01 mW/cm²). The recommended MPL was 1 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 0.1 mW/cm²for public exposure.  These proposed guidelines are much lower than what we currently have  (5 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 1 mW/cm² for unlimited public exposure).

Here are a few key statements in this document:

1. “The fact that maximum permissible exposure levels are recommended indicates that confirmed biological effects have been found, and that definite health hazards exist.”
2. “ . . . there is increasing dissatisfaction in the U.S. with the 10 mW/cm²figure since it does not contain sufficient safety factors to allow for the increased effects observed with pulsed beams . . . [Note WiFi and mobile phones have a pulsed beam.]
3. The USSR allows its workers to be exposed to 1 mW/ cm² (current 24-hour public exposure limit for Canada and U.S.] for only 20 minutes a day and to 0.1 mW/ cm² for only 2 hours a day (proposed guideline for public exposure that was NOT adopted).
4. Although most of the non-thermal effects have not yet been confirmed in the West, this does not mean the effects do not exist.
5. The general public represents a much larger population than the radiation workers and so one cannot accept as high a risk probability.

Unfortunately  the recommended lowering of Safety Code 6 was not accepted in 1977.  Today we have a much larger population exposed to even higherlevels of microwave radiation and we are exposing this population to an evenhigher probability of risk.

What is most disturbing is that on August 31, 2010  Health Canada issued astatement on their website  that  . . . “As long as exposure is below these established limits [i.e. Safety Code 6], there is no convincing scientific evidence that this equipment [WiFi] is dangerous to schoolchildren or to Canadians in general.”

If this radiation is so safe then why did Dr. Repacholi recommend a reduction in existing guidelines more than 30 years ago?

The truth is that we have no scientific evidence that this equipment (WiFi) is safe or dangerous to students as the studies with children have not been conducted!   Instead we are in the middle of one of the largest human experiments ever and we are using children as guinea pigs.  It will take a few years until we learn what the short-term effects are and possibly generations to learn what the long-term effects are of this technology.

What Health Canada should be saying is “There are no scientific studies of the effect of WiFi on children and we have no convincing scientific evidence that microwave radiation at levels below Safety Code 6 is safe.”

Dr. Michael Repacholi, prior to becoming the Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organization, was involved in formulating Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline for microwave radiation.  In 1977, he and Maria Stuchly gave a talk at the I.E.E.E. meeting in Toronto entitled “Emission and Exposure Standards for Microwave Radiation.”

In this presentation Repacholi and Stuchly proposed a Canadian maximum permissible level (MPL) for microwave radiation that was between the then U.S. guideline (10 mW/cm²) and the Russian guideline (0.01 mW/cm²). The recommended MPL was 1 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 0.1 mW/cm²for public exposure.  These proposed guidelines are much lower than what we currently have  (5 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 1 mW/cm² for unlimited public exposure).

Here are a few key statements in this document:

1. “The fact that maximum permissible exposure levels are recommended indicates that confirmed biological effects have been found, and that definite health hazards exist.”
2. “ . . . there is increasing dissatisfaction in the U.S. with the 10 mW/cm²figure since it does not contain sufficient safety factors to allow for the increased effects observed with pulsed beams . . . [Note WiFi and mobile phones have a pulsed beam.]
3. The USSR allows its workers to be exposed to 1 mW/ cm² (current 24-hour public exposure limit for Canada and U.S.] for only 20 minutes a day and to 0.1 mW/ cm² for only 2 hours a day (proposed guideline for public exposure that was NOT adopted).
4. Although most of the non-thermal effects have not yet been confirmed in the West, this does not mean the effects do not exist.
5. The general public represents a much larger population than the radiation workers and so one cannot accept as high a risk probability.

Unfortunately  the recommended lowering of Safety Code 6 was not accepted in 1977.  Today we have a much larger population exposed to even higherlevels of microwave radiation and we are exposing this population to an evenhigher probability of risk.

What is most disturbing is that on August 31, 2010  Health Canada issued astatement on their website  that  . . . “As long as exposure is below these established limits [i.e. Safety Code 6], there is no convincing scientific evidence that this equipment [WiFi] is dangerous to schoolchildren or to Canadians in general.”

If this radiation is so safe then why did Dr. Repacholi recommend a reduction in existing guidelines more than 30 years ago?

The truth is that we have no scientific evidence that this equipment (WiFi) is safe or dangerous to students as the studies with children have not been conducted!   Instead we are in the middle of one of the largest human experiments ever and we are using children as guinea pigs.  It will take a few years until we learn what the short-term effects are and possibly generations to learn what the long-term effects are of this technology.

What Health Canada should be saying is “There are no scientific studies of the effect of WiFi on children and we have no convincing scientific evidence that microwave radiation at levels below Safety Code 6 is safe.”

To make it simple: we are all born EHS, as the human organism is entirely bio-electromagnetic, since all the exchanges between our cells function thanks to electromagnetism. We lose this condition when we die and the exchanges cease, and our electroencephalogram goes flat. The problem is that most people are completely ignorant of this truth. In other words the condition of being electrosensitive is innate, and the degree of it varies with different people and in different environments.

www.next-up.org

EHS: A world first in France with scientific proof from comparative encephaloscans

The EHS have a right to live, but in France and in most other countries, due to the pressure from the industry lobbies, they have no recognition and they are not accorded this inalienable right. Their need to survive leaves them no choice, so it is quite legitimate for them to take their future in hand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mobilfunk

30th August, 2010

Abstract

This paper presents the resultsof experiments on school  children living in the areaof the SkrundaRadio Location Station (RLS) in Latvia. Motor function, memory and attention significantly differed between the exposed and controf groups.Children living in front of the RLS had less developed memory and attention, their reaction time was slower and their neuromuscular apparatus endurance was decreased.

Click here and scroll down to pdf download to read full study