Thursday, 30 July 2020

Why is Health Canada not doing anything about cell phones that exceed the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure?

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Why is Health Canada not doing anything about cell phones that exceed the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 20:39:49 -0700
From: Janis Hoffmann <>

Dear Brian Aheir, Director, Radiation Protection Bureau,


We want to know why Health Canada, which administers, under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices has neglected to do its due diligence by allowing cell phones to be brought onto the market without any independent, practical/realistic-use safety testing? 

We want to know why the manufacturers of cell phones are allowed to self report and only have to submit a sample of a one new phone, sent directly from the factory, to comply with exposure standards that has been set by the industry?


We want to know why the federally mandated warnings and safety disclaimers are not made available to the public on the outside of the packaging at the point of sale and on the Health Canada website?


We want to know why Health Canada is not educating thousands of innocent children on the safe use of cell phones and allowing them to press these cell phones against their heads, holding them against their reproductive organs and other vital organs, and storing them in their pockets when we know these devices are emitting 4 - 11 times over the current Safety Code 6 guidelines?  

The Chicago Tribune recently did an independent investigation into the cell phone scandal (Phonegate) and confirmed the findings that iphone 7 and other smart phones exceeded the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure (SAR at 1.6 W/kg at 5mm).  Apple and Samsung are knowingly selling products that exceed allowable radiation limits and have failed to warn its consumers regarding radiation risks and the need to keep the phone at a safe distance away from the body.

“The Chicago investigation confirms what the French National Agency has warned about for some time now that 90% of all the major cellphones tested (more than 450) emitted significantly higher levels of radiation exceeding the safety compliance standards, up to 5 times the current guidelines when phones are tested as they are used in real life. The current guidelines for the manufacturers is based on the 1990’s when people wore their standard flip phone on their hip in a holster about 1 “ away from your body.


In a recent study by Professor Om Gandhi, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, he examined data from 450 cell phones and also confirmed that the phone can exceed the guidelines and emitted up to 11 times over the US FCC limit when used under realistic conditions.


France has asked the European Commission to strengthen the regulations and guidelines for new mobile phones placed on the market. As recommended by ANSES, the Government has requested that the certification tests be carried out in regards to the contact with the device, and not at 5 mm as is currently the case, so that they are more representative of the real exposure of users.  France also asked for an information campaign to encourage changes in ways of use, especially among children.

The Italian court ordered the government (Ministries of the Environment and Education) to launch a campaign to advise the public of the health risks from mobile and cordless phones.


Why is Health Canada, a department of the Government of Canada that is responsible for the country's federal health policies, aggressively defending a billion-dollar industry and allowing the sale of products on the market that exceed the federal guidelines?


Looking forward to your response to our concerning questions.


Janis Hoffmann

Parents for Safe Schools


Wednesday, 24 June 2020

Health Canada is wilfully blind to the thousands of studies proving irriversible harm from wireless technology

From: Marcus  Schluschen  
To: ccrpb / pcrpcc (HC/SC)
Subject: Re: public deception
Ladies and Gentlemen of Health Canada,
Your response regarding Health Canada’s deliberate, dangerous, public deception, did not answer a single of my questions. 
In light of your unsigned response from one of your clerks, who are instructed to appease the uneducated public, I am requesting a signed reply from a senior manager, addressing my grievances. 
If Health Canada is unwilling to accommodate this reasonable request, please be so kind and have your legal department reply to me.
May I remind you, providing false information to the public, with intent to deceive, through your website, is unlawful in Canada?
Health Canada received countless research papers from EMF scientists, including medical EMF Guidelines from medical associations, and deeply concerned citizens, including myself, illustrating serious biological damage to humans, plants, insects and animals.

Today, international EMF research, showing irreversible harm to life, has climbed into the thousands!
It appears that the latest scientific understanding in EMF research must have escaped your agency, either by design or incompetence.
Must I remind you of the recent, 10 year, NTP and Ramazzini Studies, or the European Interphone StudyReflex StudySelbitz Study, the Hardell Group Studies, or the French CERENAT Study, which reflect only a tiny portion of today's available research, proving harm to all life?
If these studies are unfamiliar to you, I would be happy to provide the information to you.
Health Canada must be aware, that the Hardell Group Studies were released after the 2b cancer classification was made by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is one of the studies referenced by scientists arguing that, based on new research, the 2b classification should be re-evaluated as a class 2a (probably carcinogenic) or class 1 carcinogenic. 
During the last few years, countless peer reviewed papers have been published, proving harm to life, without a shadow of a doubt! 
Such  overwhelming scientific evidence, proving harm to all life, has resulted in international science and medical petitions, that this classification must urgently be changed, especially after the alarming results of the NTP and Ramazzini Studies were released.
Has the International Scientists Appeal escaped Health Canada’s attention as well? 
As of 2020, 253 EMF scientists from 44 nations signed the appeal, which states:
“It is our opinion that adverse health consequences of chronic and involuntary exposure of people to non-ionizing electromagnetic field sources are being ignored by national and international health organizations despite our repeated inquiries as well as inquiries made by many other concerned scientists, medical doctors and advocates. This constitutes a clear violation of human rights, as defined by the United Nations:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education.”
“By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.”
“It is indeed shocking to note that the WHO EMF Project has endorsed the obsolete EMF-exposure guidelines set by a German NGO that provides guidance on EMF-exposure limits, the ICNIRP,  and is seeking to influence nations world-wide to “harmonize” EMF exposure standards with these guidelines, even though they are not sufficiently protective of humankind or nature and do not take into account the numerous health effects studies that have been published since the IARC evaluations.”     
As Canada’s premier health agency, it is YOUR DUTY to be informed of the brazen conflicts of interests at ICNIRP:
How can Health Canada blindly accept anything from ICNIRP members, with established associations to the very industry they are supposed to be monitoring? 
According to ICNIRP’s statutes, no member of the Commission may take a job that, in the Commission's view, might endanger their scientific independence.
Only the most naive would accept their recommendations, but certainly not anyone with a modicum of education and modest intellect.
Unforgivably, even after thousands of published peer reviewed studies, of which some even underwent a second review process, by expert panels in the field of EMF sciences, Health Canada refuses to entertain the probability that their ‘opinions’ of non-ionizing radiation safety might be woefully obsolete.
Instead of counseling precaution, as other countries like Germany, France, etc. have done, to reduce radiation exposure for children and the frail, Health Canada has become a captured agency of industry, advocating no precaution of any kind, in complete violation of their mandate, which is to protect the health of all Canadians, which includes anyone suffering from electro hypersensitivity (EHS), like my wife and many others.   
Your officials seem to be lacking the knowledge that Canada is obligated, through signature, to honour its commitments to the Rio Declaration, which states:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent degradation.”
The Rio Declaration:
Principle 15 – the Precautionary Approach
80  “Principle 15 codified for the first time at the global level the precautionary approach, which indicates that lack of scientific certainty is no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment.  Central to principal 15 is the element of anticipation, reflecting a requirement that effective environmental measures need to be based upon actions which take a long-term approach and which might anticipate changes on the basis of scientific knowledge.” 
In 2015, the HESA Committee admonished Health Canada for undue diligence, after 3 days of hearings, and made 12 recommendations.  
May I remind you of the admitted, ‘war gaming of science’, by your close friends of the telecom industry?
Your website reads like it was penned by the apostles of the wireless industry, not by credible researchers whose exclusive mandate is to protect public health.
Please be so kind and reply to my email, in a respectful manner, without sounding like lobbyists of the telecom industry.
Marcus Schluschen

Friday, 29 May 2020

Forced to Home-school!

Please sign the petition asking Minister of Education to rescind his decision to cut funding to IDL schools.  Note: Send no money! The donation request is to support the change org website.

More information

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Rescind these unjustly cuts by making the funding the same for all students no matter what venue they decide to use
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 19:36:54 -0700
From: lori <>

Dear Mr. Rob Fleming,
As a single working mom with two children who relies on my family to support their education with the Independent Distributed Learning (IDL) school, the government’s decision to cut $12 million in funding will severely impact the programming, staffing, and resources available for my children. 

The IDL School, Fawkes Academy, has been there to support my children who were denied accommodation in the public school system by providing them with a full educational program.  As a concerned parent who has researched the thousands of peer reviewed studies from medical experts and scientists proving harm from the mandatory microwave radiation emitting from wireless devices in our public schools, our government has left us no choice but to home-school my children. 
The IDL Schools budgets for the 2020/21 are already set in place, which means the $793.00 deficiency will have to be passed onto the parents by charging tuition fees or increase tuition already in place.  This decision will have a huge impact on low-income families, special needs, and people living in the remote rural areas of BC.
My children have the right to equality, equal opportunity, fair treatment, and consistent access to quality education, no matter their circumstances or where they live.  We are calling on the Education Minister; Rob Fleming to rescind these unjustly cuts by making the funding the same for all students no matter what venue they decide to use, especially when the public school system refuses to provide a healthy, safe environment for learning.


Lori Hoffmann
Victoria, BC

Sunday, 10 May 2020

The Greatest Health Scandal of Our Time

Please sign and share Petition e-2424

Support Ron McKinnon, MP, chair of the Commons standing committee on health, to present a document to the House of Commons, on behalf of constituents, expressing concern for the harmful effects from radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

An article filled with false information to discredit scientists and medical experts who are warning the public of the health risks from wireless technology.

Dr. Anthony B. Miller and Frank Clegg’s response to TricityNews article

Dr. Magda Havas’s first and second response to TricityNews article

From: "Janis Hoffmann" <>
To: "Ron McKinnon" <>
Cc:, "drmagdahavas" <>, "frank" <>
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:14:10 AM
Subject: The Greatest Health Scandal of Our Time!

Dear Mr. Ron McKinnon,  Please share with Cheryl Sanftleben

Re: Petition e-2424 (Health)

Parents for Safe Schools is an organization of parents, teachers and students that would like to support your decision to bring this extremely important issue to the attention of Parliament. 

Our elected Government Officials and Provincial Health Officer have failed to do their due diligence by willfully closing their eyes to our numerous requests for answers regarding the safety of our children in schools.  They have instead deliberately overstepped the fundamental rights of parents by installing unregulated wireless radiation, a 2b carcinogen listed with lead, DDT, methyl mercury, chloroform, and car exhaust, in and around all our schools without consultation or consent, robbing us/parents of our legal right to manage and protect our children's health and continued well-being.

They have refused to provide us with an official response to the 2018, current findings of the two 10 year long studies on 2G and 3G technology by US National Toxicology Program and the supporting Ramazzini Institute Study that confirmed the link to Cancer from all prolonged wireless radiation exposure including cell tower radiation.  To date, there have been no long-term non-industry funded studies on the biological effects of 4G and 5G exposure and it’s our children who will suffer from the irreversible health effects.

Currently it is mandatory that our children will be exposed to Microwave Radiation from wireless technology with no way to shield themselves from this full body radiation, much like the rats used in these studies.

It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that microwave radiation exposure causes biological effects confirming the growing evidence of neurological effects and developmental delays with irreversible health effects, such as Depression, Suicide, Violence, Anxiety, Autism, Addiction, Behavioral Issues, Heart Episodes, Infertility, ADD/ADHD, Compromised Ability to Learn, Headaches, Nose/Ear Bleeds, Brain Fog, Difficulty Concentrating, and Cancer.  As documented in over 31,000 peer reviewed published studies by scientists and medical experts.

Our Government Officials and Provincial Health Officer have willfully dismissed all credible health information presented to them from qualified experts, nationally and internationally, which emphasize children's heightened vulnerabilities and the need for "precautionary" measures to reduce exposure and the risk of permanent health effects.

Canada agreed the Precautionary Principle would be implemented when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting that those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness and be held responsible if damage occurs.

By refusing to implement the Precautionary Principal and ignoring the growing body of “clear evidence” of cancer, the mandatory exposure in and around our schools will ultimately be responsible for the greatest health scandal of our time.


Janis Hoffmann
Parents for Safe Schools

Links and Published Peer-Reviewed Studies about the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields and the Association of the Neurological and Psychological Health Effects children are experiencing in our classrooms.

US National Toxicology Program, November 2018, 384 pages, NTP TR 595, Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones.

“Clear Evidence of Cancer” Concludes U.S. National Toxicology Program Expert Panel on Cell Phone Radiation

Ramazzini Institute, August 2018. Volume 165 pages, Pages 496-503, Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile hone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.

Ramazzini Study on Radiofrequency Cell Phone Radiation: The World’s Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link. tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

The EMF-Portal is an extensive literature database with an inventory of 31,172 publications and 6,723 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields.

World Health Organization, WHO, Press Release No. 208, May 2011, 6 pages, IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans

EMF Scientists Appeal, May 2015 - Scientists who are urgently calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO and UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on EMF exposure.

Canadian Human Rights Commission recognizes Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Precautionary Principle, The conference included the United States, Canada and Europe.

Dr. Riina Bray, Medical Director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto. Testimony before the HESA Committee 2015.

Published Peer-Reviewed Studies

Genius, Stephen J. and Christopher T. Lipp, "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or fiction?" Science of the Total Environment,STOTEN-13064: Nov. 2011, No. Of Pages 10

Heuser, Gunnar, “Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields,” De Gruyter, Rev Environ Health: 32 (3) May 2017, pages 291-299 7028.1316987744.1559426729-2060775152.1559426729 

Marino, Andrew A, et al., “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome revisited again,” Informa HealthCare, International Journal of Neuroscience, 2013 revisited_again

Marino, Andrew A. et al., "Response to Letter to the Editor Concerning "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome," Informa HealthCare, International Journal of Neuroscience, Dec 2011

Hendendahl, Lena, "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession," 30(4) 2015, pages 209-15 _an_increasing_challenge_to_the_medical_profession

McCarty, David E., et al., "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome," Informa HealthCare, International Journal of Neuroscience,
2011 r_a_Novel_Neurological_Syndrome

Morgan, L. Lloyd, et al., "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences," Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, June 2014 2 pages

Hedendahl, Lena K. et al., "Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi," Frontiers in Public Health Vol 5 Article 279, Sept. 2017

Bioinitiative Working Group, Bioinitiative 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically-based
Exposure Standard, 2012 & 2014, Section 1, Preface, pages 1-3, Section 11 Table of
Contents, pages 1-5, Section 1, Summary for Public, 2014, Section 2, Statement of the Problem, 2007,

Herbert, M.R. and Sage, C. “Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link”. Part 1:Pathophysiology , 2013, Jun;20(3):191-209, Pubmed abstract for Part 1.

Herbert, M.R. and Sage, C. “Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link”. Part II: Pathophysiology, 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. Epub Pubmed abstract for Part II.

Wen Y, Alshikho MJ, Herbert MR (2016)Pathway Network Analyses for Autism Reveal Multisystem Involvement, Major Overlaps with Other Diseases and Convergence upon MAPK and Calcium Signaling. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0153329. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0153329
Ahuja et al., Autism: An epigenomic side-effect of excessive exposure to electromagnetic fields International Journal of Medical and Medical Sciences Vol. 5(4), pp. 171-177, April (2013)

Hardell, Lennart, "World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)," International Journal of Oncology
51, June 2017, 405-413

Kaplan, Suleyman, et al., “Electromagnetic field and brain development,” Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75 Nov. 2015 pages 52-61

Pall, Martin L., "How to Approach the Challenge of Minimizing Non- Thermal Health
Effects of Microwave Radiation from Electrical Devices," International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Management Oct. 2015 Vol. 2, Issue 5

Pall, Martin L., "Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF's) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression," Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75, Aug. 2015 pages 43-51

Pall, Martin L., "Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action," De Gruyter, Rev Environ Health 30(2): April 2015 pages 99-116

Pall, Martin L., "Wi-Fi as a Very Substantial Threat to Human Health," Feb. 2017

Sage, Cindy, Child Development, Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. 2017, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1-8

Pall, Martin L. “Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.” Journal of cellular and molecular medicine 17.8 (2013): 958- 965. _voltage-gated_calcium_channels_to_produce_beneficial_or_adverse_effects

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J. et al., "Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity," Scientific Reports, Sept. 2015
Varghese, Rini et al., Rats exposed to 2.45GHz of non-ionizing radiation exhibit behavioral changes within creased brain expression of apoptotic caspase 3, Elsevier, Pathophysiology25 (2018) 19-30

Boumosleh, Jocelyne, et al., Depression, anxiety, and smartphone addiction in university students- A cross sectional study. Plos One August 2017

Zhang, Jun-Ping et al., Environmental Research and Public Health, Effects of 1.8 GHz Radiofrequency Fields on the Emotional Behavior and Spatial Memory of Adolescent Mice. November 2017, 14 pages

Click here for a Research Compilation on Cell phone Radiation, Behavior and Brain Development Compiled by Dr. Hugh Taylor of Yale Medicine
Naval Medical Research Institute Research Report, June 1971. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Report No. 2 Revised.