The Appeal now has 6,610 signatures. – https://www.appel5gappeal.ca/
= = =
I omitted 2 attachments that Dr. Powell had included with his letter I shared in last night’s update [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/2020-05-17-what-is-the-right-to-irradiate/]. You can find them at:
1) Another potential effect of exposure to RF radiation that could exacerbate the reaction to COVID-19. Studies have shown the exposure reduces the effectiveness of Vitamin D which might compromise the immune system. Doctors are reporting a correlation between Vit. D deficiency and the greater severity of reaction to COVID-19. The information below is from a group in the USA.
Vitamin D levels appear to play role in COVID-19 mortality rates
Patients with severe deficiency are twice as likely to experience major complications
“Researchers analyzed patient data from 10 countries. The team found a correlation between low vitamin D levels and hyperactive immune systems. Vitamin D strengths innate immunity and prevents overactive immune responses. The finding could explain several mysteries, including why children are unlikely to die from COVID-19”.
“Marshall 2016 reported wireless radiation lowers vitamin D receptor (VDR) activity by changing the shape of the VDR, thus impairing VDR activity and its ability to bind with vitamin D, and that this effect peaks at just under 6 GHz
(Wi-Fi uses 2.45 and 5 GHz, but just recently, WiFi using 6 GHz was introduced in 2020)
Belpomme et al, 2015 reported vitamin D deficiency can result from inflammation caused by chronic wireless radiation exposure
To read more about the role that vitamin D deficiency plays in COVID-19, read this well-written article from Children’s Health Defense:
2) It is always good to have good studies available to include in letters, to answer questions, etc. Here is a list of peer-reviewed studies on Wi-Fi.
PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED RESEARCH STUDIES ON WI-FI AND 2.4 GHZ WIRELESS FREQUENCIES
“Many people ask “What research has been done on Wi-Fi frequencies? Do we know that they are as harmful as cell phone radiation frequencies?”
There are several research studies done on W-Fi specifically that have found adverse effects. However it is important to recognize that Wi-Fi is radio frequency radiation. Almost all the wireless frequencies long used by the public are categorized as radio frequency radiation.
People have not been using Wi-Fi for as long as they have been using cell phones, so the research on humans that has looked at long term use of cell phones is very important to understand the long term health risks from wireless and Wi-Fi.”
3) BC Occupational Health and Safety is asking for comments/suggestions re specific portions of the current regulation. One of the sections pertains to radiation — ionizing radiation. Unfortunately, the section that pertains to non-ionizing radiation is not being reviewed — and it is badly in need of revision.
After the IARC decision that classified EMR as a 2B (possible human carcinogen), I wrote to Occupational Health and Safety and asked how the regulations would be changed to protect the workers and the general public, specifically teachers and children who are exposed to Wi-Fi in schools. I was told no change since Safety Code 6 is the guideline.
Why is exposure to ionizing radiation to be as low as reasonably achievable but not non-ionizing? It is time for a change. If enough of us submit comments providing evidence supporting a major revision to the regulation re non-ionizing radiation perhaps they will consider including this in the review. It couldn’t hurt.
This agency needs to be reminded that Safety Code 6 is not a law or a regulation. In fact, SC 6 says that it applies to workers at and visitors to federally regulated sites, e.g. cell towers. Also, it says that provinces may set their own limits. Therefore, there is no reason why the BC health and safety regulation cannot protect the BC public from EMR.
See the section of the regulation that pertains to non-ionizing radiation, section 7.19 (4):
(3) The employer must ensure that the exposure of workers to ionizing radiation is kept as low as reasonably achievable below the exposure limits.
(4) The employer must ensure that a worker’s exposure to non-ionizing radiation does not exceed the exposure limits specified in
(a) for radiofrequency:
(i) Health Canada Safety Code 25, Short-Wave Diathermy Guidelines for Limiting Radiofrequency Exposure, 1983, as amended from time to time;
(ii) Health Canada Safety Code 26, Guidelines on Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields from Magnetic Resonance Clinical Systems, 1987, as amended from time to time;
(iii) Health Canada Safety Code 6, Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, 1999, as amended from time to time, and
Consultation on proposed amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
“Our Policy, Regulation and Research Division is requesting feedback on proposed amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The consultation phase provides stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback prior to the proposed amendments going to public hearing.”
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” Carl Sagan