Precaution and wireless techs

Skip to first unread message

Apr 22, 2017, 3:16:19 AM4/22/17
Hello Kathleen,
You wrote :
''In the case of wifi emissions, while municipal bylaw-making powers are theoretically in place, the scientific evidence of harm is far less clear as compared to pesticides.''  

In fact, compared to pesticides, the evidence linking EMFs and diseases such as cancer ''is as strong, if not stronger. It’s only claimed to be weak by people in conflict of interests’’, says Dr Beatrice Golomb of USC  <> 858 247-1748

She notes that 70% of studies funded by industry and govt conclude cell phones are safe and 70% of independently-funded studies do show an effet, according to a study by Dr Henry Lai : UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry 

Dr Golomb is finishing a paper on electrosensitive patients and says :
''In our survey, heart related symptoms are present in a high fraction of affected individuals. Included are heart rhythm disturbances, reported by 84% (which are the leading cause of death in those with heart attacks, and obviously can cause death without a heart attack). 60% report chest pain. Some people go into heart failure. EMR causes oxidative stress, which can cause closing or spasm of blood vessels, blocking oxygen flow. This is a mechanism for heart problems in smokers (smoking also causes oxidative stress). This would be expected to lead to potential for heart attacks in some people.''

Finally, do read this


Wireless Communications Public Safety Standards Reevaluation -  HOUSE OF DELEGATES 2014

Introduced by Cindy Lee Russell, M.D. AND Ken Yew, M.D. 


Whereas there are over 6 billion active cell phones worldwide and dependence of wireless communication networks is rapidly expanding including cell phones, cell towers, wireless routers for home use, medical devices and utility smart meters; and (1)


Whereas scientists are increasingly identifying EMF from wireless devices as a new form of environmental pollution with a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence finding significant adverse health and biologic effects on living organisms with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwaves currently approved and used in wireless communication, and


Whereas peer reviewed research has demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF including single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors; and  (2-55)


Whereas there is a long latency period of years to decades to study and identify adverse health effects such as brain cancer, neurodegenerative damage and autism; and


Whereas children’s brains are developmentally immature until adolescence, their skulls are thinner and the brain is considerably more vulnerable to toxin exposure , and (23,24)


Whereas the World Health Organization in 2011 designated wireless communications including cell phones to be a possible carcinogenic, and (63)


Whereas many scientists, researchers, public health officials and agencies conclude that wireless electromagnetic frequency (EMF) standards established by the Federal Communications Commission are outdated as they are based only on heat effects which damage to the organism and not biological effects of non –ionizing EMF microwave radiation which are scientifically demonstrated at levels hundreds of times less than current safety exposure limits and thus current standards are  inadequate to protect public health; and (49-51)(57)


Whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 has asked for reassessment of  exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields limits and policies  that  protect children’s health and well-being  throughout their lifetimes and reflect current use patterns (58)


RESOLVED; that the CMA understands that  existing public safety limits for microwave EMF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect public health  thus endorses efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to reevaluate its safety standards to include consideration of adverse non thermal biologic and health effects from non ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications; and be it further


RESOLVED; that the CMA supports efforts to implement microwave safety exposure limits to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research, and be it further


RESOLVED; that the CMA set up a task force to determine adequate precautionary recommendations for the use of cell phones and wireless devices for schools and children


Best regards
André Fauteux, Editor/Publisher
La Maison du 21e siècle Magazine 

All truth passes through three stages. 
First, it is ridiculed. 
Second, it is violently opposed. 
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. 
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Le 20 avr. 2017 à 10:50, Kathleen Cooper <> a écrit :

Dear André,
While the question is theoretical, it might be possible that a municipal bylaw  similar to the Hudson bylaw would withstand a court challenge. However, a thorough legal opinion would be needed. The following should not be construed as a legal opinion but summarizes the Hudson ruling, the rationale behind regulation of “cosmetic use” of pesticides, certain aspects of the pesticide regulatory system, as well as a comment on the strength of evidence about risks of wifi exposure.  
The Supreme Court ruling in Hudson had to do with confirming that Hudson, and indeed municipalities in seven of ten other provinces, had jurisdiction to enact a bylaw under the authority of provincial enabling legislation. The provincial laws grant powers to municipalities to address matters of broad public interest/general welfare (the language varies in different provincial enabling statutes).
The Supreme Court also addressed the matter of nested authority to regulate pesticides. They described a tri-level regime of federal, provincial, and municipal authority. Therein, the feds regulate pesticide registration, the provinces regulate additional details about use of federally regulated pesticides, and municipalities can further regulate activities, including use of pesticides, within their municipal purview and geographic boundaries. The Court described each level of government as complementary, also noting that lower levels of government can strengthen but not weaken rules enacted by the levels above. The Court’s decision did not rely, in legal terms, on its reference to the Precautionary Principle but did usefully point out that precautionary action in the form of municipal bylaws was consistent with this principle.
Recall also that municipal pesticide bylaws addressed so-called “cosmetic” or unnecessary use of pesticides while maintaining the ability to use pesticides for public health protection, horticulture or other agriculture-related businesses located within municipal boundaries, etc. The focus on restricting needless use of toxic chemicals known to create risk by their very nature was an important aspect of applying precaution in these bylaws.
Pesticides are designed for and do kill living things and their risks are assessed accordingly within the federal regulatory system that applies risk assessment procedures. While the data evaluated in a risk assessment is always incomplete, a very large body of evidence is assessed to determine acceptable risk. The assessment results then direct all stages of use and disposal of these products.  
In the case of wifi emissions, while municipal bylaw-making powers are theoretically in place, the scientific evidence of harm is far less clear as compared to pesticides.  While I have not canvassed the literature in detail, I am aware that evidence indicates health concerns, notably glioma, from long-term cell phone use. Far less certainty exists as to whether health effects are associated with more generalized emissions from wifi towers or other electromagnetic fields, recognizing that there appears to be sensitivity among some people perhaps akin to environmental/chemical sensitivity.
Again without having canvassed the literature in detail, I am aware that there is a much larger degree of uncertainty and often contradictory and/or negative lines of evidence for health effects from wifi, including negative epidemiological evidence (see, e.g., attached study).  Given this lack of strong evidence, I think municipalities are likely to be far more hesitant to pass bylaws comparable to those that address the cosmetic use of pesticides. If they did pass such a bylaw, they might be able to use the Hudson decision to confirm their authority to do so. But, as noted above, a more thorough legal opinion should be sought.  And in answer to your specific question we are not aware of lawyers or law professors currently pursuing this matter although I can forward such details if they become available.
All of which I hope is helpful.
Kathleen Cooper, Senior Researcher and Paralegal, Canadian Environmental Law Association
1500-55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5J 2H7
CELA toll-free: 1-844-755-1420

CELA’s office is part of the Co-operative of Specialty Community Legal Clinics of Ontario Inc. and is a scent/fragrance-reduced environment. We ask that everyone avoid using any chemical-based scented products when visiting our offices.

From: André Fauteux
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:12 AM
Subject: Media request : Precaution and wireless techs
I’m a former Montreal Gazette reporter (1988), publish Canada’s oldest magazine on healthy and sustainable housing since 1994 and blog for the HuffPost.
Around the world, many countries such as France and Israel, cities such as Salzburg, Turin, Krakow and Paris, and American States such as Maryland and Massachusetts are legislating or considering legislation to reduce microwave emissions from cell towers, Wi-Fi and other sources.
What chance would municipal bylaws in this area have of resisting a court challenge knowing that Ottawa has jurisdiction over telecoms yet based on the  Spraytech v. Hudson ruling in which the Supreme Court confirmed cities can act to protect public health based on the Precautionary principle when the science is inconclusive but worriesome? Serious harm to public health may be occurring, fear medical authorities such as the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the California and Canadian Medical Associations. 
Do you know of any Canadian cities and lawyers acting in this area, besides this one by Charles O'Brien <>?
Are any Canadian law professors familiar with this issue and have any read this recent European book? 

Le droit face aux ondes électromagnétiques - O. Cachard - LexisNexis

Here are my references
Thanks very much and best regards
André Fauteux, Editor/Publisher
La Maison du 21e siècle Magazine 

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages