Saturday, 24 October 2015
Sunday, 20 September 2015
INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NO LONGER INSURE INJURIES FROM WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL NO LONGER INSURE INJURIES
FROM WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
Lloyd’s of London often leads the way as
one of the world’s largest insurance companies in industry trends, taking on
risks that no one else will and recognizing early signs of trouble and possible
liability issues.
Recently Lloyd’s of London modified its
renewal policy (Feb. 7, 2015) to now exclude any coverage associated with
exposure to non-ionizing radiation (i.e. wireless communications) “directly
or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by
electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism,
radio waves or noise.”
In response to a request for clarification, CFC
Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s, stated:
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32)
is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as
standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses
caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through
mobile phone usage.”
(Feb. 18, 2015)
In 2010 the Emerging Risks Team of Lloyds
of London published a white paper on the question of EMF (Electromagnetic
fields) and made a comparative study to the history of asbestos and its impact
on the insurance industry.
Lloyd's report explores links between EMF
exposure and asbestos exposure http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000392648
"The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years."
Maxum
Insurance: Exclusion to Electromagnetic Radiation
(1) "Bodily Injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of, resulting from, caused by or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation; or
(1) "Bodily Injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of, resulting from, caused by or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation; or
(2) The costs of abatement or mitigation electromagnetic radiation or exposure to electromagnetic radiation. This exclusion also includes:
(a) Any supervision, instructions, recommendations, warnings or advice given or which should have been given in connection with the above; and
(b) Any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay "damages" because of such an injury or damage.
"Damages" mean compensation only in the form of money, for a person or entity who claims to have suffered a "bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury" or who claims to have sustained "property damage"
Insurance and Liability of Wireless Communication Carriers
Listed are documents from insurance
companies, court cases that have been awarded compensation for RF radiation
adverse health effects, industry defence attorneys, actuaries, and from the
news/web media. They claim limits of
liability for any adverse RF health effects in their contract with the user,
and maintain that they do not have to carry tort or liability insurance.
http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EV9-Insurability-Liability-Corrected-4-8-13-PUC-464.pdf
WHY SWISS RE WILL NOT RE-INSURE MOBILE PHONES FOR HEALTH RISKS
"A re-insurance company is a company
that backs up an industry for claims that the industry may not be able to
cover. Possibly the largest re-insurance
company in the world, Swiss Re, will not take this liability on with cell
phones and health effects. At present,
most cell phone companies are “self insured”.
Meaning, they may be able to just file bankruptcy should there be too
many claims.”
“In its Swiss Re SONAR Emerging Risks
report, 2013, which covers risks that could “impact the insurance industry in
the future”, the company categorises the impact of health claims related to
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as ‘high’.
It acknowledges recent reports of courts ruling in favour of claimants
who have experienced health damage from mobile phones, and also says that
anxiety over risks related to EMFs is “on the rise”
Austrian
AUVA Report: Insurance Company Presents Research on Health Risks from Cell
Phone Radiation
“The ubiquitous exposure to this unnatural type of radiation at unprecedented levels of power density harms human health. Short-term and long-term health impairments are preprogrammed and will especially manifest in the next generation if politically responsible actions are not taken immediately.”
http://www.eirewaves.com/media/auva_report.pdf
Why would insurance companies exclude
injuries from electromagnetic radiation if it were completely safe for all
persons including children and pregnant women?
Saturday, 5 September 2015
School Being Sued For ADA Violations - Wi-Fi Accommodations needed because of Sensitivity to Wi-Fi
The school installed Wi-Fi in Spring 2013, when a
12-year-old boy started to experience troubling
symptoms, which he reported to his parents when he
came home from school. These included
severe headaches, itchy skin, and rashes. The school
nurse indicated that various children in the same
classes were reporting increased headaches,
dizziness, nausea and chest pressure. The symptoms
were present whenever he was at school.
Experts warn
pregnant mothers to keep cell phones and other
wireless devices away from their wombs
Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and co-creator of the BabySafe Project says, “The wireless world may be convenient, but it’s not without risks.” She goes on to explain that “when more than one hundred of the world’s leading medical doctors and researchers on wireless radiation say we have enough evidence for women to take protective action, we think women should know about it.”
Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and co-creator of the BabySafe Project says, “The wireless world may be convenient, but it’s not without risks.” She goes on to explain that “when more than one hundred of the world’s leading medical doctors and researchers on wireless radiation say we have enough evidence for women to take protective action, we think women should know about it.”
Insurance Companies Won't Cover Cell Phone Brain Tumor Product Liability Lawsuits
The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Dr.
Erica Mallery-Blythe has dedicated this video to Jenny Fry, the
15-year-old girl with EHS who recently committed suicide by hanging.
Her parents fought for over 2 years to have the wireless technology
removed from her school. They were convinced it was damaging her health
both physically and psychologically. Parent should not be forced to
choose to whether to educate their children or safe guard them.
https://vimeo.com/131798243
https://vimeo.com/131798243
Progress in Austria's South Tyrol: “Applying the Precautionary Principle”
1.
To replace existing
wireless networks whenever possible with networks
that emit less radiation at schools, preschools,
hospitals, nursing homes, and other public
facilities…
2. To establish a working group whose mandate it is to assess these new technologies and their exposure levels. With regard to wireless communication technologies, mobile Internet access, and public health, the working group shall clarify which technologies emit less radiation and provide sustainable technology options…
3. To start an education and awareness campaign that informs about possible health risks, especially regarding the unborn, infants, children, and adolescents and that develops guidelines for a safer use of cell phones, smartphones, and Wi-Fi …
2. To establish a working group whose mandate it is to assess these new technologies and their exposure levels. With regard to wireless communication technologies, mobile Internet access, and public health, the working group shall clarify which technologies emit less radiation and provide sustainable technology options…
3. To start an education and awareness campaign that informs about possible health risks, especially regarding the unborn, infants, children, and adolescents and that develops guidelines for a safer use of cell phones, smartphones, and Wi-Fi …
http://kompetenzinitiative.
Saturday, 4 July 2015
Canadian Parliament Committee Calls for Protection of Vulnerable Groups from Wireless Radiation Exposure
The witnesses discussed possible links
between RF exposure
and cancer, reproductive issues and autism. Concerns were
raised about RF
exposure in schools due to use of Wi-Fi; the need for RF
exposure limits to
protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, infants
and children,
and persons with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
The
Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health (HESA)
A
historic report making 12 recommendations to the Canadian
government after
holding public hearings on Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 on
human exposure to
electromagnetic fields. Entitled Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Radiation and the Health of Canadians,
the report calls notably on
Canada to « continue to provide reasonable accommodations for
environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic
hypersensitivity, as
required under the Canadian Human Rights Act »
Environmental idiopathic
intolerance: what role for EMFs and
multiple chemicals?
Program/Presentations
Dr. Lennart Hardell, Professor in Oncology and Cancer Epidemiology University Hospital, Sweden
Dr.
Anthony B. Miller, Professor Emeritus at U. of Toronto's
School of Public
Health.
Presentation to Canadian Parliamentarians about
the health
impact of non-ionizing radiation (cellphones, WiFi, cordless
phones etc)
Parental opposition to use of laptops, tablets in schools grows - Israel
According
to the Education Ministry, students at some 200 schools are
currently
participating in a computer-based education program that
requires children to
bring a tablet or laptop device to class. Over the past year,
however, parents
have raised concerns, ranging from radiation from wireless
devices to the
economic inequalities the program highlights.
The
History of the
Health Effects from RF and Microwave Radiation from the
Archives of Dr. Zory R.
Glaser Ph.D., LT, MSC, USNR
1972 – Bibliography
of Reported
Biological Phenomena (‘effects’) and Clinical Manifestations
Attributed to
Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation
Our government knows Microwave Radiation Exposure has Health Risks and they are exposing our Children in school.
Dr. Oz Alert - Why Cell Phones Could Cause Cancer in Kids
Dr. Oz
discusses the potential harmful effects of cell
phone radiation in kids in this segment subtitled
Dr. Oz Alert
EHS - Press Conference 5th Paris
Appeal Congress
A focus on
ElectroHyperSensitivity (EHS) and Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity (MCS)
The Brain Tumor That Killed the Vice President’s Son Has Been Linked to Cell Phone Radiation
The son of Vice
President Joe Biden had a glioblastoma multiforme,
or GBM. This all-too-common tumor has been linked to
cell phone use.
Pediatric Occupational Therapist Cris Rowan's Open Letter to Schools who Use Wireless Radiation
In my capacity as a pediatric occupational therapist, biologist, speaker, and author on the subject of the impact of technology on child development and learning, I’m writing to you on behalf of students, teachers, and parents requesting the urgent removal of wireless radiation from all school environments.
http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.
Monday, 22 June 2015
C4ST Letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun re: HESA Report
Editor Dan Cassidy
Editor Scott Neufeld
Via email: DCassidy@vancouversun.com;
sneufeld@vancouversun.com
PO Box 33
Maple Grove Village Postal Outlet
Oakville, ON
L6J 7P5
June 20, 2015
RE: Parliamentary Report Warns Cell Phones, Wi-Fi a Serious Health Issue. June 19, 2015
I would like to call your attention to the falsehoods, errors and omissions published in the above article. Segments of your coverage were correct in reporting that Canada’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health (HESA) has carefully examined the science showing cell phones, Wi-Fi and other wireless devices are potentially harmful. Critical apects of your coverage are blatantly wrong.
You prominently quoted an expert who dismissed the panel of elected officials in Ottawa who have determined there is a need for caution from our wireless devices, by flippantly stating “I can assure you they do no harm.”
What you neglected to tell your readers is that this “expert” is not a doctor or a health specialist of any kind. Natalia Nikolova is in fact a professional engineer who has carried out work funded by Research in Motion (manufacturers of Blackberry) since 2007. The McMaster University website lists RIM at the top of her sponsor list.
You could have told your readers of her conflict of interest, but instead you misled them that she is an expert on human health, which she is not.
Given the gravity of this error it is ironic that RIM actually disagrees with her statement that cell phones and WiFi “do no harm”.
In Blackberry’s phone packaging there is a published warning that states: “Use hands-free operation when available and keep the device at least 25 mm from your body (including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers) when the Blackberry is turned on and connected to the wireless network.”
If all cell phones are harmless like Ms. Nikolova claimed in your story, then why does the company who funds her work advise pregnant women and teenagers to keep a safe distance while in use? The reason is that they are dangerous, Blackberry knows it, and the statement in your story is false. Yet you printed it as truth from an authority. This is very dangerous to your readers, particularly pregnant women, and requires an immediate and forthright clarification.
I understand that errors occur and normally I would not be so concerned but the health of many of your readers may be compromised by such reckless industry spin being disguised as professional reporting.
It is further perplexing that the Vancouver Sun published a basically fair and balanced story on Thursday June 18 the day after the Health Report was tabled in Parliament during which reporter Tiffany Crawford stated that BC Medical Officer of Health Perry Kendall has previously addressed the concern of Wi-fi in schools by suggesting “limiting Wi-Fi to certain times or locations, turning it off when not in use, and to disconnect Wi-Fi in rooms that don’t have computers.”
Less than 24 hours later your website revised the story and quoted the same Doctor Kendall stating the opposite with: “I think most of the scientists who look at this wouldn’t agree there is a compelling rationale for it.”
How can one story state he suggested caution against wireless radiation, and the revised story state that he is dismissing the Parliamentary Report? This flip-flop went unnoticed and unchallenged by your editors. It strikes me that such a flip flop in itself would normally constitute “news”.
The reason Canada’s Parliamentary Health Committee included among its 12 recommendations that our doctors be taught about the potential harm of wireless devices is exactly because of this type of confusion.
The Health Committee dedicated three hearings and heard testimony from leading scientists and medical doctors from Canada and around the world. They included experts from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Trent University, Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, the Universities of Toronto and Helsinki, as well as Columbia and Harvard Universities. All of these experts presented peer reviewed and published scientific evidence to the Committee showing harm from wireless devices below Health Canada’s current safety standards, or demonstrated how the process Health Canada uses to evaluate the evidence does not meet international standards.
Canada’s Members of Parliament on the Health Committee, like the parliaments of France and Belgium and the European Union, have been extremely careful to study the science of this emerging public health crisis, weed out the “experts” who actually work for wireless companies, heed the warnings published by phone manufacturers, and let their citizens know that the cell phone in their pocket might make them infertile, give them cancer, or like Blackberry warns: harm a fetus before it is born.
Canada’s Health Committee exhaustively studied this issue. The investigation was introduced by Dr. Hedy Fry, the Liberal MP from Vancouver Centre who is also a physician. The scientific evidence was so convincing that the Report was unanimously supported by all Parties on the Committee in a rare non partisan decision.
Your story did not mention this phenomenon. It quoted none of the Members of Parliament who examined the evidence, and none of the scientists who provided it. It appears that instead you sought out a wireless industry microwave researcher, who contradicted her research sponsor’s health warnings, and gave your readers a dangerously false impression about the safety of their wireless devices. Such disservice to your readership is extraordinary.
C4ST is a national organization concerned with correcting the outdated microwave thresholds of Canada’s Safety Code 6 and bringing them into the 21st Century. We appreciate that you paid attention to this story, but in future we expect a more professional approach to the facts.
We believe it is your responsibility to review the testimony that the Parliamentary Committee heard, investigate all the evidence that is available and provide a truly balanced representation of the facts.
Sincerely,
Frank Clegg
CEO,
Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST)
frank@c4st.org
cc: Ms. Gillian Shaw - gshaw@vancouversun.com
Friday, 12 June 2015
International Scientists Warn Against The EM Radiation Emitted By Electronic Gadgets
Is Wi-Fi
making your
child ill?
As France
bans Wi-Fi in nursery and primary schools, a British expert
who has given up
using wireless gadgets says we should do the same. Excellent
article featuring
Radiation Research Trust trustee, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe.
International
Scientists Warn Against The EM Radiation Emitted By Electronic
Gadgets
In the appeal, the
scientists asked the UN to
increase the strength of its advisories on the health risk of
EMF on humans. In
addition, a request has been made to assess and identify the
potential risk of
the non-ionizing radiation on the wildlife and other living
organisms.
Symptoms of
Wifi in
schools
Frank
Clegg, C4ST talking about the symptoms children experience
from the radiation
exposure from WiFi installed in the schools.
Australian
Researcher:
Phone Radiation is a Hotline to Brain Cancer
Dr. John
Tickell is attempting to raise awareness and is calling
for more
funding for brain cancer research, as it has become the number
one
most deadly cancer for young people in Australia. According
to the Australian government, there are 35 new cases of the
cancer
discovered each week with four out of five cases being fatal
in the first five years.
Wireless
Warning:
Re-chargin the debate over cell phones
CTV
reports on the need for warning labels on cellphones, which
was passed in
Berkeley, California this week. In Canada, MP Terrace Young is
asking for
support to pass Bill C-648 which would require manufacturers
to put safety
warnings and disclaimers on the outside of packaging so
parents can make an
informed choice before they make a purchase for their
children.
Is Wi-Fi
Making you Sick?
The WiFi
Alliance refused to comment: The Wi-Fi Alliance owns and
controls the
"Wi-Fi Certified" logo, a registered trademark. They are
making
billions of dollars off this unregulated technology that has
never been tested
for safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)