Grace Nnamezie
7 November 2009 Lagos.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200911091157.html
--------
British Columbia, Canada
Dear Dr. Stanwick,
Sometime ago I wrote to advise you of recent scientific studies that confirmed that prolonged exposure to radiation from FM transmitters was highly dangerous. I also asked you to help me and my neighbours, many of whom had bizarre illnesses which may be associated with living as close as 30 meters from these transmitters. You responded that radiation problems were a Federal issue and not anything you could get involved with.
Later when I sent information about WiFi in schools being dangerous to children, you provided a response from Randy Ross of BC Radiation Centre (who helped write Safety Code 6 in the 1990s) saying that Safety Code 6 is safe. Subsequentlyyou advised the school board which had asked you for information that there was no reason for letting me meet with members because WiFi was safe.
Now I am sending a recent report on TETRA,(Please see the attachment). This isa communication system which currently is being tested in Canada. An expert is reporting that prolonged exposure to this radiation is causing cancer among firemen and policemen in the UK. I am asking that you, at the minumum,take whatever measures you can to allow the officers and responders who would use this equipment to know of the potential harm.
Many countries around the world have taken measures to limit exposure to non-ionizing radiation from radio, TV, and cell transmitters, WiFi and other wireless technology. Many ban WiFi in schools and reduce exposure limits from other wireless sources tomere fractions allowed in Canada.Health Canada continues to ignore the scientific studies which, as the least, calls for use of the precautionary principle. Obviously, we cannot depend upon the federal government to protect us.
According to the Canadian Constitution health is the responsibility of the provinces, not the federal government. It falls to the province to take the precautions necessary to prevent further harm. I ask you to demand, on our behalf, that the health department employ the Precautionary Principle at least in the case of TETRA. It is not too late to prevent this technology from being used in British Columbia.
And should you wish to see more studies confirming the dangers from radio, TV, cell or WiFi radiation, I would be happy to provide them. The rest of the world is using safer technology while Canada continues to allow its citizens to suffer the consequences of inaction. British Columbia could lead the way for the rest of Canada by implementing precautionary measures. And by so doing, it would be fulfilling its duty to protect the health of its citizens.
Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
Chair, CAUSE
--------
New Zealand
Dear Ministers
Even if you are not concerned about the effects of cellphones on kids brains, you may be interested in their effect on male fertility!
This study is one of hundreds which identify adverse “biological effects” from low level exposure RF EMR (radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation).
The New Zealand standard (NZS2772:1 1999) does not recognise the possibly of EMR causing and long term biological effects (it protects only against the short term heating/microwave oven type effect). This is despite the potential for long term biological effects from RF EMR now being established beyond any doubt and despite the now ignored advice in the MfE/MOH National Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radio Frequency Transmitters that exposure should be avoided where possible.
Other countries have emission limits 100 time more stringent that New Zealand’s. The governments of other countries and many international experts have issued warnings that children’s exposure to RF/EMR should be minimised.
Why is New Zealand unnecessarily exposing its children to EMR. Think of the long term public health and environmental consequences if the research is correct. Why cant best international practice and a more precautionary approach be adopted? Why is the government not informing our residents of the risks so people can make their own decisions about the exposure they and their children are prepared to accept? Why are all the usual community participation rights for environmental legislation excluded in the case of EMR – despite the enormous public concern and the increasing knowledge of the longer term risk form even low level exposure?
I look forward to your advice as to what action you are taking to address these concerns.
As always I’m very happy to discuss.
Regards
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI and concerned mother of three
Informant: Martin Weatherall