Long-Term, Low-Level Microwave Irradiation of Rats

Skip to first unread message


Sep 8, 2010, 2:36:03 AM9/8/10
The attached is a paper by CK Chou and Bill Guy, both notorious for their proactive (and well paid) support for cellphones.
It is ironic that his paper, though published 10 years after the data was analyzed, shows they knew (and KNOW), that microwave radiation is harmful.


Proof of Health Canada's Deception
Dear HESA members,

Recent debate concerning WiFi in schools with concerned parents resulted in Health Canada releasing a press release on Aug. 31, 2010 at the following link. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ftr-ati/_2010/2010_142-eng.php The major point of the release was to reiterate their consistent response to concerns: "Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low-level radiofrequency energy, such as that from Wi-Fi equipment, is not dangerous to the public."
I am writing to give you evidence that this is not true; in fact, I would go so far as to call it a deception that has been perpetrated on the trusting Canadian public for more than a decade. To substantiate this strong statement, I will quote from the Royal Society of Canada Report of March 1999, "A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices" prepared in response to a request from Health Canada.(http://www.rsc.ca/files/publications/expert_panels/RF/RFreport-en.pdf) At that time Safety Code 6 was essentially the same as it is today.
1. Page 2 - "Safety Code 6 was explicitly designed to protect workers and the public from thermal exposures." This means that wireless devices such as WiFi, cellphones, cell and radio transmitters, and DECT phones are not in the category protected by Safety Code 6 because they fall in the lower, non-thermal end of the electric spectrum. Health Canada has continued to state that Safety Code 6 applies to the entire spectrum. Clearly this is not true.
2. Page 2 - "There is a growing body of scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels required to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and tissues." The Panel determined that studies show that somehow, at even very low levels which are significantly below what Safety Code 6 allows, the radiation emitted by wireless devices causes physical or biochemical changes not related to heat.
There are many "biological effects"  that are addressed in this report , and two of them are blood-brain barrier leakage and cancer promotion.
The blood-brain barrier is a critical structure in the brain that separates the flow of blood through the brain from the brain matter itself. Leakage can lead to brain damage such as dementia. In the Report, pages 44-45 are devoted to studies showing such leakage occurs as a result of exposure to RF field at levels below Safety Code 6.
ODC stands for Ornithine Decarboxylase which is an enzyme found in cells. Increased activity in ODC has been found to promote aggressive and invasive tumours, which are often cancerous. Studies which demonstrate the relationship between RF radiation below Safety Code 6 and the increased activity of ODC can be found on pages 36-42.. 
I have provided only a couple of quotes and references from only the first few pages of an 150 page document, but I could have provided many more which are equally alarming. Even with this report in hand, Health Canada and even some members of the Royal Panel that wrote this report, such as Dr. Daniel Krewski, continue to declare that there is no evidence of harm below the level of Safety Code 6. As a result, the exposure to wireless devices has increased dramatically. The Royal Panel stated that as of 1998 close to 3.5 million people used cell phones and estimated increases of 30-40% annually. Teenagers are sleeping with cell phones under their pillows. Cell transmitters are being erected on top of buildings and apartments, near homes and schools.  WiFi is being installed in elementary schools. Health Canada is allowing proliferation of this radiation exposure at levels they know to be dangerous, especially to our most vulnerable: children.
A new Health Canada guideline is required, one based on biological effects. Of course, industry in Canada will complain.  It will insist that it cannot possibly adapt to a more responsible approach. But that same industry already has in other parts of the world. Hopefully when it does adapt, it will be more rigourous in its testing so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.
Sharon Noble
Victoria, British Columbia
Dear Ms. Lee,

Having read your blog regarding wifi effects on children, I first thank you for caring enough to write on the subject. However, I do wish you had checked with me before publishing what you thought had been said. Your words were incorrect in several substantive ways.

Please also note there exist exactly zero studies showing wifi to be safe. Your statement to the contrary was abjectly false, and will mislead many parents to expose their children to harm unless corrected immediately. All you need do for correction is ask someone to provide such a study: it's a rather easy assignment for you and your unnamed source alike.

Please let me know when we might speak directly, in order that I may provide you accurate and precise information on this emergent topic. 

I presume your interest and capability in accuracy and precision, as well as commitment to checking with sources, from your B.A. in English from Northwestern, your journalism courses at the Medill School of Journalism and your former editorial positions at Parenting and Working Mother magazines.   

Susan Clarke

Letter to

Nina Arron
Director, Public Health Protection and Prevention,
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Further to my previous correspondence, the media has begun to quote 
Health and Safety Managers, that Dr. Arlene King's public statement on 
the safety of WiFi is "false and misleading".

This quote from Dr. David Fancy, PhD. Department Head Brock 
University, member of the institution's Health and Safety Committee. 
Reported today in the Simcoe County press.

“Our directive was that all staff and faculty should know there is a lot 
of controversy and nothing conclusive that says it’s safe. A year 
later, I’m looking at what I consider to be false and misleading 
statements from (Ontario’s chief medical officer of health) Dr. Arlene 

full story is here:  

As I understand it Dr. Fancy's Health and Safety Committee had 
the Health Canada documents a year ago, that conclude the blood brain 
barrier weakness caused by low-level microwave exposure, especially in 

Since you also have the evidence this is true, can you please 
reissue the statement to caution parents that biological changes are 
known to occur from microwaves emitted by WiFi devices in schools.

I understand there are complexities in your job, but I'm not sure 
what could possibly be more important than giving parents full and 
accurate information that their children are being exposued to a 
device in school that can change their biology in ways that are 
associated with risks to their health.

They are in fact unwittingly exposing their children under 
misleading guidance from Ontario's CMOH. The little children have no 
voice in this. They have been failed by all levels of government, and 
the entirety of the system that is established to ensure their safety

Their parents can make any decision they want, but they must first be 
offered the full truth from our top doctor.

Rodney Palmer
Simcoe County Safe School committee



Do your homework on Wi-Fi: professor


Chou CK et al. Long-term, MW rad of Rats 1992.pdf
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages