Monday, 26 May 2014


My Friends,

I rarely ask people for money. In fact, I have a very difficult time doing so. 

In this instance, it is not difficult at all.  Please read the attached -- a story that affects us all in one form or another; it is condensed into one page of text.  This is a David v. Goliath fight with Edna and Marshall Pettipas facing off against one of the telecom giants in Nova Scotia.  How does that affect each of us, from around the globe?

The story is a universal one.  It involves a cell tower, a dream home, the family's health, and one big lie.

It also involves one giant success.  Bell Aliant, the defendant, lost in their Motion for Summary Judgment -- their request to have the case thrown out of court.  The judge has decided the case has merit and will be heard.  The Pettipas need money for experts, some of whom are coming in at reduced rates.  This money is needed by June 15. The Pettipas address and a PayPal link are included. If anyone from other countries has difficulty with the PayPal link, please contact Edna by email.

Many of you have newsletters, email groups, and websites.  If you would be kind enough to spread the word, I believe there is a chance the Pettipas case is one that will be heard around the world. Whatever anyone can contribute will be greatly appreciated.

With Gratitude,


Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091



Edna & Marshall Pettipas, of Afton, Nova Scotia, are suing telecom giant Bell Aliant for loss and harm suffered due to radiation from a cell phone tower. Edna and her husband need tens of thousands of dollars to bring highly qualified experts to trial and they need to have the majority of those upfront costs by June 15! The Pettipas’ success could have precedent setting implications that will help every citizen of Canada, and in time, this case will have implications for other countries, as well. The greater public interest will be served as a result of the case heard around the world.

Edna and Marshall are up against a telecom giant with limitless resources.  Some of the experts signing on have offered to reduce their fees, but still the costs are extraordinary.

This is classic David v. Goliath and the Pettipas family needs your help.  They already passed a major legal hurdle when the judge refused to throw the case out on a defense request for dismissal.  Many similar cases have not survived this crucial test. Yet the Pettipas case is going forward and they need – we all need – your help.  Whether you can donate $5.00 or $5,000, your generosity will be greatly appreciated.

Donations can be sent via paypal: 

Or mail cheque/money order to:
Edna Pettipas, 484 Old Antigonish Road, Antigonish, NS B0H 1A0

or email transfer:

No one should save for a lifetime to finally build their dream home, move in on Christmas Eve, and have to move out, in the very early hours on Christmas Day.  These are selfless people who are fighting a fight for all of us so that we and our children can live in a world where the Goliaths should not be allowed to lie about safety and rob us of our health and our dreams.

On the next page please see a photo of Edna Pettipas holding some of the documentation she has accumulated for her lawsuit against Bell Aliant Regional Communication Inc. and the dream home Edna and Marshall built.  The Pettipas felt intense pressure to lease the Property for placement of the cell tower. They were reassured by the Company that the cell tower would not pose any health concerns, except the possibility of falling ice. The cell tower company suggested the house to be built 300 feet away from the base of the tower, due to the danger of falling ice. When the Pettipas built their home they ensured it was definitely at least 300 feet away from the base of the tower.

The Pettipas eventually had to abandon their home due to ill health caused by the cell tower radiation.

Please, for Edna and Marshall Pettipas, and for your family in the future, donate today.

With immense gratitude,

Edna and Marshall … and all who stand with them

Monday, 19 May 2014

Coming Soon New Documentary - Generation Zapped (trailer)

Digital Dementia, Other Health Concerns Caused by Your Cell Phone
It’s not just brain cancer that has doctors worried about the health impacts connected to cell phones. In addition to brain cancer, health concerns from cell phone wireless radiation include increased oxidative stress, altered brain activity, hearing loss, fertility issues and impacts on brain neuron maturation.

Coming Soon New Documentary - Generation Zapped (trailer)
Electromagnetic radiation has been linked to undisputable biological and health effects including risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, autism, Alzheimer and ADHD.  The World Health Organization classifies radio frequencies as class 2B carcinogen, same as DDT Asbestos, Lead…

Health risk from wireless technology growing: Study

"It is essentially an unregulated experiment on children’s' health and learning. Microwave from wireless tech disrupts thinking – what could be worse for learning? Technology can be used more safely with wired devices that do not produce these biologically-disruptive levels of microwave radiation" said Cindy Sage, Co-Editor of the BioInitiative Report.

Dr. Magda Havas' Live Blood & Electrosmog
Watch this 2 ½ minute video featuring Live Blood Analysis done before and after exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation, with Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario


Two Scientists Break Silence on “Major Flaws” in Royal Society’s Recent Report on Safety Code 6
“The Royal Society panel has failed in its obligation to the public,” said Dr. Miller. “It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen.” Dr. Miller said he is most concerned about involuntary exposure, such as children exposed to 
Wi-Fi in schools.

We are talking about your kids, a trillion dollar industry that doesn’t give a rat’s behind about them, and school administrators that will do whatever they are ordered to do without batting an eye.

Digital Dementia, other health concerns caused by your cell phone
It’s not just brain cancer that has doctors worried about the health impacts connected to cell phones. In addition to brain cancer, health concerns from cell phone wireless radiation include increased oxidative stress, altered brain activity, hearing loss, fertility issues and impacts on brain neuron maturation.

Oh my...what's in WiFi?

When the school district rolled out the Ipads this year, Aiden Fitchett noticed something new; as he did when seated near the wireless projector any time a teacher used one for a presentation: headaches. Bad ones. Bad enough that the 8-year-old second grader would come home crying from the pain.

Mobilize is an investigative documentary that explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation including brain cancer and infertility. Examining the most recent scientific research and legislative efforts, Mobilize illuminates how finance can corrupt public health.

Teachers' Unions in Germany, UK, USA and Canada Who Have Done Their Research Do Not Support WiFi in Schools

Press Conference - C4ST Reaction to Royal Society Committee – Safety Code6 Review (4/01/14)
Since May 2013, C4ST has expressed concerns about the existing members’ financial relationships with companies, industry associations and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. In addition, four of the eight Expert Panel members have published material and statements demonstrating predetermined viewpoints that they don’t believe published evidence showing that humans are in danger well below the existing safety threshold published in Safety Code 6.

Teachers' Unions in Germany, UK, USA and Canada Who Have Done Their Research Do Not Support WiFi in Schools
What kind of liabilities are school boards prepared to bear, for knowingly putting children under unnecessary and involuntary exposure to an IARC Class 2B Possible Carcinogen?

‘Kick out politicians who give students hazardous e-readers with unproven educational value’”
Today it is very difficult to be a teacher and take responsibility for teaching in the classroom where students’ cell phones are constantly ringing, text messages are being
sent back and forth, and surfing the entire time online or playing games through iPhones and iPads. All this when students really should be working on their school assignments.

A lawyer has been retained to investigate the possibility of a Class Action law suit with respect to Electro sensitivity

The Lakeshore Coalition have been working with an environmental law firm towards development of a Class Action Law Suit on behalf of persons who suffer Electro-sensitivity and Electro-hypersensitivity.

Wednesday, 14 May 2014





Susan Foster

In May 2011 the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, IARC, voted to classify the RF – EMF Spectrum as a 2B or “possible human carcinogen.”  Worldwide attention was once again focused on the possible cancer causing effects of RF (microwave) radiation, yet in the three years since the 2B classification, two divergent paths have been taken with respect to the science focusing on cell phones and brain tumors.

 On one hand, the Hardell Group from Sweden led by oncologist Dr. Lennart Hardell published five more studies in 2013 – for the first time looking at over 20 years of data. As a result of these findings Dr. Hardell has called for an urgent upgrading of the classification of RF – EMF from 2B to Group 1 – a known human carcinogen. If IARC were to accept Dr. Hardell’s recommendation, RF – EMF  would then be placed in the same carcinogenic category as tobacco and asbestos.

On the other hand, there appears to be a back-room effort to ignore, denounce and bury Dr. Hardell’s newest science by two highly recognized groups, the World Health Organization and SCENIHR, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. 

Susan Foster, on behalf of the UK’s Radiation Research Trust, has discovered that one man appears to be responsible for the attempted suppression of what is arguably the best epidemiological research in the world on cell phone usage and its correlation to gliomas and acoustic neuromas. This science could threaten a multi-trillion dollar industry; thus the stakes could not be higher – for corporate profits, yet more importantly, for the health of people all over the world.

In her letter of May 8, 2014 to the European Commission’s John Ryan, Acting Director of the European Commission’s Health and Consumers division, Susan Foster accuses SCENIHR of scientific misconduct. She further asks for a thorough review of the process whereby science was selected for SCENIHR’s Preliminary Report. SCENIHR had been given the charge of reviewing the present RF – EMF safety limits affecting over 500,000,000 European citizens.
 “This is not ‘independence’ on SCENIHR’s part,” states Susan Foster. “This is scientific misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards worldwide, albeit indirectly.”

Susan Foster joins Eileen O’Connor, Director of the UK’s Radiation Research Trust, Cindy Sage, co-author of The BioInitiative Reports, Swedish investigative journalist and Chairman of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation Mona Nilsson, as well as Blake Levitt and Henry Lai in demanding a new unbiased evaluation of health risks from RF - EMF by SCENIHR.

For More Information Contact: Susan Foster   -
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004

  Susan Foster

Rancho Santa Fe, California


May 8, 2014
John F. Ryan, Acting Director
Public Health Directorate
Health and Consumers Directorate General
European Commission,
L – 2920 Luxembourg
SCENIHR Preliminary Report on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Sent Via Email
Dear Mr. Ryan:

The concern about the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report has been swift, severe, and global. It causes those who know the science and comprehend the potential for harm from microwave radiation to ask if SCENIHR is truly a body worth listening to, or has it lost all credibility. In hopes that all is not lost, I am writing to express my profound concern that industry-bias is destroying the ability of standard-setting bodies to protect the citizens of Europe, and indirectly, citizens on a global scale.

As an Advisor to the UK’s Radiation Research Trust (RRT), I am following up on RRT Director Eileen O’Connor’s recent letter to you asking for a thorough review of the SCENIHR Preliminary Report and the process itself by which science is selected for consideration. I contend the current selection process by SCENIHR is suggestive of a pattern of scientific fraud that is intended to suppress high quality science in order to preserve the way the telecommunications industry conducts business. The question must be asked if both SCENIHR and the World Health Organization are being influenced or controlled by the same interests and individuals who favor industry profits over their charge of protecting the public health.                

No fewer than 500 million citizens of the European Commission are relying on SCENIHR for review of the current EMF standards, which have already been criticized as being set more than a thousand times higher than the level at which adverse biological impacts occur. When standards are set this high, it allows the manufacturers to falsely yet legally assure consumers, “There is no health problem or safety concern as the level of exposure is 1/1000th of what is allowable.” Thus there is the promise of safety, which is only an illusion because so-called “safety standards” are set capriciously high to begin with. There is no legitimate, independent science that will declare the current standards are safe. Absolutely none.

In my opinion and that of many others, the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report inaccurately and, in part, fraudulently assesses the existing science. It ignores the new science by Lennart Hardell (five studies in 2013) in which he calls for radiofrequency RF - EMF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. Yet rarely has “dismissing” a group of studies shone the spotlight on them so brightly. It is causing people around the world to ask what is so significant about these new Hardell studies. The answer to that question may shed some light on the inner-workings and true motivation behind some key SCENIHR scientists.

It was the Hardell Group’s earlier science that IARC, the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, used along with the Interphone Study before declaring a 2B classification in May 2011 for all EMF within the RF Spectrum. The newer Hardell epidemiological studies cover more than 20 years, something no similar study has ever done, and the results are so convincing that Lennart Hardell states in his conclusion that RF - EMF should be urgently upgraded to a human carcinogen with no “possible” or “probable” qualifications. Dr. Hardell makes the case that RF radiation belongs in the Group 1 human carcinogen category.

By ignoring Hardell’s science, SCENIHR attempts to marginalize and even suppress the Hardell Group’s science which could change the way the world—consumers, courts, and governments alike—view the use of wireless in today’s world. Why would SCENIHR, a group composed predominantly of industry-friendly scientists, work so hard to pretend they “had not received” or “did not like the methodology of the epidemiology” of the 2013 Hardell studies? There is a possible answer to this question. A Group 1 or even a 2A classification changes the “causation” argument in cell phone/brain tumor court cases, and will make it easier for victims who have developed brain tumors related to cell phone usage to prevail in the courts. When consumers prevail in the courts, it may force the mobile industry toward a more cost effective manufacturing decision to shield mobile phones and find safer ways (e.g., fiber optics) to replace microwave signal transmissions. It would, at least in the short run, increase costs for the mobile industry and decrease profits. I believe the Hardell Group’s 2013 studies are game-changing, and as such, the industry wants this science suppressed. 

To further the concern that SCENIHR is not operating in good faith, the one scientist who was touted by SCENIHR as being their proof of objectivity is Dr. Kjell Hansson Mild of Sweden. Dr. Hansson Mild is one of the co-authors along with Dr. Lennart Hardell in four of the five studies published in 2013 and subsequently ignored by both the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2014 World Cancer Report and SCENIHR. For SCENIHR to pin their reputation as an objective body on the presence of Dr. Hansson Mild, and then to ignore five Hardell studies, four of which were co-authored by Dr. Mild himself, is the height of hypocrisy. It casts a deep shadow of doubt on SCENIHR’s Report. I am aware that Dr. Hansson Mild has come forward with a letter detailing his attempts to have the 2013 Hardell Group science included in SCENIHR’s report, and his efforts were denied. He described bringing the Hardell Group studies to the attention of Dr. Joachim Schüz, in particular. These papers were delivered within the time frame for acceptance of publication and are relevant as they provide evidence of the link between mobile phone use and glioma and acoustic neuroma. The Hardell papers were systematically disregarded while SCENIHR relies heavily on the much criticized Danish cohort study using poor exposure data. [See Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. Review of four publications on the Danish cohort study on mobile phone subscribers and risk of brain tumors. Reviews Environmental Health. 2012; 27: 51-58.]
When another highly criticized study was sent to SCENIHR [Benson et al, with Joachim Schüz as a co-author], including two reports that were published during the same time or even after the Hardell studies, it was included in the SCENIHR Preliminary Report. This study failed to find a link between cell phones and cancer, and when it initially did find a link between cell phones and acoustic neuroma, the authors, including Schüz, failed to discuss it in the Abstract. The systematic inclusion of poor quality science with industry backing, and the systematic exclusion of Hardell’s science, allowed SCENIHR to come to an erroneous conclusion that evidence for glioma is weaker now than in 2009. This sort of “cherry-picking” favors industry profits over consumer protection and thus the SCENIHR Report should not even be considered science. 

This is not “independence” on SCENIHR’s part. This is scientific misconduct. SCENIHR is claiming to be something it is not, and hundreds of millions of lives are at stake as well as the ability to impact standards worldwide, albeit indirectly. 

It is important to note that Dr. Joachim Schüz has been named as the key person to whom Hardell’s science was delivered and summarily dismissed, both as Head of IARC’s Section of Environment and Radiation and as a SCENIHR Committee Member. As Dr. Mild wrote to you in a letter dated 28 April 2014:It must be clearly stated that Dr Schüz refused to include these studies in SCENIHR and that the omission is his responsibility.” Dr. Mild elaborates: “[Schüz] clearly stated that the epidemiological part was solely his responsibility to write and furthermore he himself was to decide what to include.” It is also important to note that Schüz has received industry funding for much of his participation in studies such as Interphone and COSMOS which had predictable findings. Should Dr. Schüz’s influence continue to be felt at SCENIHR, and by the same token, at IARC?

Gratefully, the BioInitiative Working Group is offering us an alternative that is receiving increasing recognition and respect around the world and, as you know from Cindy Sage’s recent letter to you, BioInitiative has done a thorough review of SCENIHR’s Report and issued its response. I am offering the link to the BioInitiative Working Group’s letter commenting on the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report.

Mona Nilsson on behalf of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation submitted her comments to SCENIHR on 16 April 2014, and they are well-worth reading. I have included a link to Ms. Nilsson’s comments, in which she writes to SCENIHR: “The Preliminary Opinion of SCENIHR gives a false and even fraudulent presentation of research results and statistical data. Critical data are abundantly omitted or ignored. Studies and results showing health risks from radiofrequency and low frequency radiation are misrepresented. Studies showing no risks with severe limitations and errors are instead presented without any relevant criticism.”

I join the RRT’s Director Eileen O’Connor, Cindy Sage on behalf of the BioInitiative Working Group, Mona Nilsson of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, and scores of others in calling upon the European Commission to investigate possible conflicts of interest on the part of SCENIHR scientists, and to demand a thorough investigation of the selection process of science for the 2014 SCENIHR Preliminary Report. I also call for a new unbiased evaluation of health risks from RF - EMF by SCENIHR.
Respectfully Yours,

Susan Foster
Advisor, Radiation Research Trust (UK)
Medical Writer

Cc: Eileen O’Connor
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD
Cindy Sage, MA
IARC Ethics Committee
 c/o Susan Haver
Joe Benton, MP
Carl F. Blackman, PhD
David O. Carpenter, MD
Jill Evans, MEP
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, PhD
Giulio Gallo
David Gee
Dr. Ian Gibson
Yuri Grigoriev, MD
Sissel Halmøy, MS
Gunnar Heuser, MD, PhD
Martha Herbert, PhD, MD
Girish Kumar, PhD
Michael Kundi, PhD
Henry Lai, PhD
Dariusz Leszczynski, DSc, PhD
Caroline Lucas, MP
Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD
Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD
Donata Meroni
Steve Miller
Mona Nilsson
Gerd Oberfeld, MD
Alasdair Philips, BSc, DAgE
Brian Stein
Christopher Wild, PhD

Saturday, 10 May 2014

Education not WiFi Radiation - Practice Safe Tech

We have just designed a great decal for your car using a clear plastic material that behaves very much like a large “post-it-note.” This decal can be easily removed and leaves no sticky residue. For best results it is recommended that the decal be placed on a clean dry surface (not recommended on any chipped surface to prevent lifting of paint with removal).

These new decals are $5.00 each plus postage.  If you would like to order some of these decals for yourself, family and friends, please email

We thank you for your support that will help to raise awareness about the dangers of wireless radiation.

Janis & Tammy
Please contact us first at to place an order.
Payments can be made by paypal using the donate button or

Cheques c/o:

‘Parents for Safe Schools’


Facebook: like & share information

Documents and Presentations posted:

#parentsforsafeschools @wannabewired @4safeschools