Parents for Safe Schools: Letters to Superintendant for WiFi Free Area

Subject: Safety Code 6 and legal concerns

Dear Mr. Elder:

I am writing concerning your email of Monday, April 4, 2016 to a family member of a student suffering harm from the mandated use of school 'wifi'.

I had a large acoustic neuroma brain tumor removed in 2010 and wanted to know what could have caused it. At that time there were six studies correlating my tumor to 'wireless, now there are many more. I have been studying the area of potential health risks from 'wireless' ever since. There are many people all over the world, and here in BC, that have been studying it much longer and are much more knowledgeable than myself.

The first year of reading I didn't believe anything I read. The information was confusing, highly technical, and I didn't know who to trust. I was a 'loyal' Canadian back then, and didn't think it was possible that the safety standards in this country could be lax enough to cause harm. I refused to believe it. In retrospect, I was incredibly naive.

'Wireless' is not a safe technology. There is no 'proof of safety', in spite of your statement that the authorities you've alluded to 'attest to the safety of wireless technologies'. That is incorrect. Read their statements again. Except for Health Canada, which has perjured itself, they do no such thing. They are not dumb enough to put themselves in legal harms way, but they are obviously smart enough to deceive most of us, at least initially.

The Provincial Health Officer states that there is 'no convincing evidence' of harm. That is very, very different from saying it is 'safe'. The BC Provincial Health Officer, 'Dr'. Perry Kendall, has recently made it very clear that he is not saying it is 'safe'. He's just saying there is 'no convincing evidence' of harm. I am attaching an excellent and succinct two page letter from Prof. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden (think Nobel prizes) sent to Dr. Kendall a few years ago which is, in essence, a public spanking of Kendall for his refusal to acknowledge facts (or, in my opinion, his lack of willingness to admit them). Johansson has spent his life studying this area, and is a recognized international expert. Kendall is not on the road map.

The World Health Organization (which is by the way, a highly conflicted organization that was infiltrated and corrupted by the tobacco and asbestos people) IARC committee categorized 'wifi' as a Class 2B 'Possible Carcinogen' in 2011. Many on the committee wanted it moved to Class 2A 'Probable Carcinogen'. At least 50% of that decision was based on the work of Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden. Since 2011, Hardell has completed another 5 long term studies, all of which show increases in cancer, primary brain cancer. In 2015, Hardell stated that Canada's 'Safety Code 6', which our Provincial Health Officer uses to avoid further discussion, is a 'public health disaster' and that wireless needs to be moved to a Class 1 'Known Human Carcinogen' on an urgent basis. Many people consider Hardell to be the top expert in the world on this matter.

Health Canada's comes closest to saying 'it's safe', but there's a real problem with their conflicted statements. First of all, they can't prove safety, and there's a great deal of evidence that it's not safe that they won't discuss.

Health Canada will tell you that 'Safety Code 6', which covers wireless radiation, is among the safest standards in the world. They are counting on you being gullible, unable to think for yourself, and not having enough time to investigate, since a bit of research will reveal that it's one of the worst standards in the world, much less protective than China, Russia, India, and many European nations.

Safety Code 6 is a recommended 'guideline', not a law. Why would that be? In a $4 trillion dollar global wireless market, can you guess why there are no laws in Canada? I'll bet you can...picture lawyers... you can's sue company's who don't break non-existing laws.

Consider also that Lloyd's of London and Swiss Re, two of the world's largest insurers, won't insure for wireless 'health effects'. Why would two of the largest insurance companies in the world, who make their money selling insurance, not sell to one the largest and fastest growing industries in the world? You don't have to think hard about that one. Read Swiss RE's annual 'SONAR' newsletter which compares wireless to asbestos with it's potential for a 20 year cancer latency.

Safety Code 6 is not worth the paper it's written on. The original microwave safety standard which is the core of SC6 ( which was originally developed by a Nazi named Hermann Schwan brought to the US after WW2 in 'Operation Paperclip') was based on 'thermal heating' effects only, and has conveniently been maintained that way to this day. The safety 'test' done on wifi type equipment is this: if it doesn't heat your body 1 degree Celsius or more in a 6 minute period, then it's fine. It's proclaimed 'safe'.

But the problem is, more than 20,000+ scientific studies have found 'biological effects' (DNA damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, calcium ion imbalances, oxidative stress, etc. etc. etc. etc.) at levels up to 100,000 times lower than 'SC6'. This is likely what the young boy in your school is suffering from, and what you are exposing everyone in the school, including yourself, to.

I am attaching a document from Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy (Imperial College, London UK) that describes the effects on the body of chronic, low level wireless such as you are deploying on your students. Don't read it before bedtime.

Now here's Health Canada's big problem: they state on their website (unless it's recently been changed) that there are no known health effects from wireless and that SC6 covers 'biological effects' as well. However, to their absolute horror in Quebec Superior court in September 2013, HC scientist James McNamee panicked and spilled the beans, admitting under oath that Safety Code 6 doesn't cover biological effects, except for in the 3khz-100khz range. So... either Health Canada is lying on their website or their scientists are lying under oath.

I am attaching an excellent paper called 'Captured Agency' by Norm Alster of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. It's long at 59 pages, but I strongly recommend you read every word of it, because it details the malfeasance, rot, and corruption intrinsic in the FCC which I strongly suspect is almost identical to that in it's little brother, Health Canada. There are many Americans involved with our SC6 process, including Daniel Krewski who was recently thrown off the 2015 SC6 review for an undisclosed conflict of interest. He's not a very honest man it seems.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean disrespect, but since I started studying this area it has seemed bizarre to me that schools, whose primary purpose is to teach thinking skills, appear to be completely bereft of them themselves. Wifi has nothing whatsoever to do with 'learning', it's simply a convenience technology for connecting to the internet. Wired connections are faster, more reliable, and completely safe. For what possible reason would you take spectacular risks with the health of the students and teachers, and combat parents who strongly suspect their child has been harmed? For what? So the student can walk around with their unplugged devices? It doesn't make much sense, does it? There is no ROI, only the quite probably prospect of future legal action.

Frankly, and with all due respect, I think you are a brave man. After what I've read about the health effects, I wouldn't sleep at night if I'd unleashed this in a school. Something tells me you should have a good lawyer and keep some cash and a valid passport at home. There is a case going through the US court system now (25 brain cancer victims, all dead) and although I don't think it will be successful this time around, in time just like tobacco legal precedents will be set and things may evolve very quickly.

Remember that the public health system did not protect us from thalidomide, tobacco, asbestos, DDT, agent orange, depleted uranium, and a host of other products. Industry comes first. It's happening all over again with 'wireless', using the tobacco play-book.

Thank you and good luck.

XXX

April 2, 2016

Dear Principal Hunter and Saanich School Board Representatives,

Please consider this important request to designate a certain portion of the school a wireless free zone in order for Tyler to learn with his peers in a learning environment that will not make him sick. Students like Tyler who are EHS, deserve to go to school with their peers, and for their medical needs to be accommodated in school, in a manner that will not alienate them from their peers. Just as a school will accommodate a child will a severe peanut allergy by banning peanuts throughout the entire school, or in certain classrooms, so should the same be done for Tyler. Perhaps you are concerned about the quality of education from designating a wireless free zone, but top schools are setting precedents demonstrating that sometimes less is more.

In case you were not aware, some students with EHS have committed suicide after being ostracized at school, and medical EHS needs not accommodated in school. Jennie Fry (aged 15), hanged herself when her school refused to understand that being in classrooms with WiFi caused her to experience serious physical discomfort and harassed and bullied her by requiring her to serve detentions for leaving classes due to WiFi induced symptoms in rooms where she experienced intense functional impairment (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-girl-found-hanged-after-suffering-fromallergy-to-wifi-a6755401.html).

Some researchers estimate approximately 3% of the population has severe symptoms of EHS and another 35% of the population has moderate symptoms such as impaired immune system and chronic illness (Havas, 2007). Hallberg and Oberfeld published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (2006) historical EHS data and project if past trends continue that 50% of the total population is expected to suffer due to EHS by year 2017 (http://www.next-up.org/pdf/EHS2006_HallbergOberfeld.pdf).

In a recent government report, “RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS,” the Committee discusses the need for the government to continue to make accommodations for those suffering from EHS as required under the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

School Boards have already taken action to support Teachers that are suffering from EHS, and we owe it to our children, our future, to let them learn WITH their peer group, and to have normal, healthy social interactions that build their character and confidence, not alienate them from their peers. Do you think it is reasonable for Tyler to go to school in the basement away from his peers? I find it heartbreaking and you have a chance to make this right.

Perhaps you are concerned that the quality of education might decrease by getting rid of WiFi, but students can always learn with wired connections, and some research shows that increased technology can actually impede student learning. Ready access to WiFi and increasing use of technology, does not necessarily equate to better education. For instance, an article in the Australian “A Top Australian school has banned laptops in the class, warning that technology “distracts: from old-school quality teaching” shared that “heavy users of computers in the classroom “do a lot worse in most learning outcomes. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/computers-in-class-a-scandalous-waste-sydney-grammar-head/news-story/b6de07e63157c98db9974cedd6daa503

The Standing Committee of Health (2015), examined the issues surrounding wireless radiation, and the committee, make up with NDP, Conservative and Liberal party members UNANIMOUSLY adopted 12 important recommendations after sharing that:

The Committee agrees that the potential risks of exposure to RF fields are a serious public health issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Canadians so that they have the knowledge to use wireless devices responsibly and are able to make decisions about the use of wireless devices in a manner that protects their health and the health of their families.

Were you aware that Health Canada has acknowledged that some studies do find adverse health effects, as pointed out in a Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) Fact sheet? The Fact Sheet shares:

1.2 HEALTH CANADA ADMITS STUDIES SHOW HARM AT LEVELS BELOW SAFETY CODE 6 Mr. Andrew Adams, Health Canada: In testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6. (1) Health Canada document “determined that 36 studies were of “sufficient quality for inclusion in the Risk Assessment” in the following categories:” Cancer is linked in 6 studies, •Brain/nervous system impacts in 13, Biochemical disruption in 16 and Development and/or learning behaviour impacts in 7. (2)

The United Federation of Teachers shares on their website that “Wireless radiation is emitted by the myriad of wireless devices we encounter every day. It was once thought to be relatively harmless. However, we now know that wireless radiation can cause non-thermal biological effects as well, including damage to cells and DNA, even at low levels.” They provide tips to their members to reduce exposure and to protect their pregnant mothers. http://www.uft.org/our-rights/wireless-radiation

The NDP complimentary report from Standing Committee on Health (2010) shared that “Concerned parents who fear their children are being exposed in classrooms to a dangerous technology , when less-contentious options exists that can deliver the same benefit, must have public options available to them. If the ‘unaccepted’ science is in fact correct, Canada will face larger health care costs for the treatment of biological effects including cancers and fertility problems. With this in mind, children should not be forced to be exposed to this technology in their schools until it is actually proven safe, not just theoretical acceptable.”

By providing a designated wireless free zone area for Tyler to go to school along with his peers, you would also give parents concerned about the health effects a choice to be more proactive with their children’s health. Needless tragedies can be prevented, and you have the power, the responsibility, and the tremendous opportunity to make a difference to Tyler, and to begin needed change for the increasing number of students and teachers diagnosed with this condition. Please choose to be a lighthouse district for others to follow, and provide a wireless free zone for Tyler WITH his peers, and for parents unwilling to take an unnecessary risk. Stand up for what really matters.

Sincerely,

XXX

I am writing on behalf of a young boy I have never met but for whom I have great compassion. Those of us who suffer sensitivities to our surroundings be they chemical, food, environmental or from wireless radiation have our immune systems stressed regularly by just being in the world.

If I come into contact with someone wearing a perfume that triggers a headache I can move away and resolve the situation. If I know I have food sensitivities I can avoid those foods or if I decide to partake I know at least that I had a choice & I am aware of the consequences. Environmental allergies are a little more trying but at least they only occur for a few months & I have strategies for dealing with them.

When it comes to wireless radiation it is almost impossible to remove oneself from the effects. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these effects are only a problem for the sensitive ones... they are the canaries in the coal mines and we would be wise to heed what their bodies are telling us all. We are all being bombarded by invisible, tasteless, odorless waves of radiation. These waves pass through buildings so be sure that they also pass through us. Scientists researching the effects are finding biological damage at a cellular level. We are cautioned not to have too many x-rays during our lifetimes because the damage is cumulative and yet we are exposing our youth to a similar problem for 5 hours a day. Whenever possible wired options should be pursued and if not feasible then precautions should be in put in place to alleviate the harm.

Thanks for listening.

XXX

To whom it may concern at Royal Oak school in Saanich Victoria:

Please stop exposing our teachers and students to RF and wi fi.

There is no need for this, it is NOT necessary for education! Wired is more efficient.

Fiber optics is much safer. Our teachers and students are worth it. The health and

well being of one child is more than enough reason to choose safer options!

Tyler should not have to be separated from teachers and peers to attend school!

Sincerely

XXX

Mr Elder

The information you included in your email letter to a concerned grandparent is wrong.

"Our installation of wi-fi services in schools is based on (1) the educational needs as expressed by school staffs and parents and (2) compliance with standards established by the World Health Organization, Health Canada and the local Medical Health Officer, all of whom attest to the safety of wireless technologies even as they recognize that some harm can come from other high intensity electromagnetic fields not found in schools."

The only safe computer network in a school is an ether network. it has also been proven that a hard wired network gives faster internet service than wi-fi and the health effects are not a concern.

Parents and some staff may think that wi-fi is the be all and end all of the universe but they do not know the dangers of it as well. They don't know because school boards and school officials have kept the truth from them. The World Health Organization does NOT say that wireless technologies are safe. They have been classed as 2B carcinogens. 2B means possible danger and reputable scientists are trying to get wireless radiation upgraded to a class 2A If these technologies are so safe then why have schools in France, Israel and India, among others removed wi-fi from their elementary schools. As for saying that Health Canada and Dr Perry Kendall say that wi-fi is safe is another major problem. Health Canada is influenced by industry and will not listen to reputable scientists who have done the work and they can prove that there are major health consequences. Dr Perry Kendall has been sent hundreds of studies showing the dangers of wi-fi, cell phones, smart meters and other forms of technology all using wireless systems. He won't even read them. He is a dinosaur that can not see past his pay cheque that the government gives him.

In this province we are governed by a party that does not care about the health and well being of it's citizens. Electrohypersensitivity is acknowledged as as disability in Canada and the United Nations have also acknowledged the disability. There are other countries who acknowledge it as well.

I am attaching numerous articles for your reading and I ask that you read them and then try telling me that wi-fi is safe. (the attached articles are at the links below).

https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/message-to-schools-colleges-about-wireless-devices-health-nov-2015.pdf

http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/danger-of-wi-fi-backed-by-science.html

http://parentsforasafeschool.blogspot.ca/2015_02_01_archive.html (School officials could be personally liable for exposing our children to microwave radiation in our schools.)

Dear Mr. Elder:

I am writing concerning your email of Monday, April 4, 2016 to a family member of a student suffering harm from the mandated use of school 'wifi'.

Thank you and good luck.

XXX

On Apr 5, 2016, at 9:38 AM, XX wrote:

Dear Sir:

I have been sent a copy of your email justifying why WiFi is installed in your schools. May I invite you to do some research on the internet because what you will find is that there are no scientific peer-reviewed research studies that says WiFi is safe.

None.

You seem to have taken your cues from none other than Dr. Perry Kendall who has been shielding the citizens of BC from important scientific information ie. WiFi is not harmless, in fact quite the opposite. WiFi has been proven to corrode and weaken metal structures. Doesn't it make sense that it could also corrode and weaken our fragile bodies, skeletal structure and immune system?

Please. Do your research. Thousands of young children, whose bodies are the most vulnerable, are being harmed. The 11 year old boy who suffers from being around WiFi is the canary in the coal mine. Even though Dr. Kendall has been given over 150 scientific research studies showing WiFi is harmful, he continues to say it's safe. He is hiding behind the skirts of Health Canada who, for some yet unexplained reason, also say WiFi is safe. I wonder where they are getting their information? The wireless companies?

Thousands of young children's health in your schools are being adversely affected by this silent killer.

WiFi is the new tobacco and it took 40 years before governments and the medical community accepted that tobacco kills. Forty years of lobbying by the tobacco industry, manipulated data, corruption and millions of unnecessary deaths.

Sadly, this same scenario is occurring in the wireless industry. Telecommunication companies have us convinced that WiFi is safe...It is not.

As a society, we are addicted to our wireless devices. It's become the norm. But just because it has become normal, doesn't mean it's good for us. It is not.

Hard-wired computers are safer and healthier. I invite you to explore the WiFi issue independently and draw your own conclusions. If you do, you will see it's a "no-brainer". Pun intended.

Subject: Fw: WiFi in schools

Att: Saanich School Board,

School Trustees & Ministry of Education,

Subject: WiFi in schools

Greetings,

Our grandson will be soon enrolling in the Saanich School system and we have great concerns for his safety! To be specific: WiFi and tablets in schools, which were classified a 2B CARCINOGEN by the World Health Organization (IARC) in 2011.

According to IARC, the 2B CANCER classification applies to ALL wireless devices, emitting non-ionizing microwave radiation frequencies, such as cell phones, cell towers, WiFi, tablets, smart meters etc.

It has come to our attention that children like 11 year old Tyler from the Royal Oak Middle School, as well as other children and many teachers, suffer adverse biological effects of electro hyper-sensitivity (EHS) from powerful commercial WiFi in schools and tablets.

EHS is induced by pulsed, radiating wireless technologies and the obsolete non-protective Safety Code 6.

My wife, who used to work in the electronic engineering office for one of Canada's largest telecommunication companies, has first hand experience with electro hyper-sensitivity (EHS) and the dire consequences which follow.

Once a person is effected by EHS, the quality of life takes a severe nose dive, from which recovery is remote.

Career prospects and earning capacity is diminished and in many cases eradicated, rendering their education useless. On a personal level, social isolation follows, nothing anyone would have ever dreamed of.

The outdated belief that education is not possible without wireless technologies is nothing more than absurd hubris, promoted only by the wireless industry lobby.

Hard-wired computers, laptops and even wired tablets in a class room, are a safer and faster alternative for children, as well as teachers. No one would be exposed to unnecessary microwave radiation!

Ignoring health concerns of parents and students by school boards, is a human rights violation and utterly unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

No child nor any school staff member, should not be exposed to the harmful microwave radiation, without their informed consent!

International scientists and physicians warnings are increasing at an alarming rate!

http://www.saferemr.com/2015/06/international-scientist-appeal-on.html

May 11, 2015:

190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, the UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk.

These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide. (e.g., cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wireless devices, cell towers, wireless utility meters).

Feb 8, 2016:

Two hundred and twenty scientists from forty two nations have signed The International EMF Scientists Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health.

About 2000 scientific papers in all!

Groups who have raised serious health concerns also include The American Academy of Pediatrics, and The Canadian Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA)

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO)
Workers Compensation Act Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
Health Canada
The Council of Europe (47 Countries) Adopted Resolution 1815 (2011)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) - 60,000 Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons
The Austrian Medical Chamber (Osterreichische Arztekammer, OAK ) - 40,000 doctors
Swiss Physicians for the Environment (MfE)
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
International Society (17 countries) of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) and Irish Doctors Environmental Association (IDEA) recommendations
Interdisciplinary Society for Environmental Medicine Germany
Israel's Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman
BCCPAC - The BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils
2012 AGM Resolutions adopted for Parent Choice and Precaution
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) 40,000 teachers and staff 2013 Resolution
BC Teachers' Federation (BCTF) - 40,000 teachers 2013 Resolution

The inability of school boards to adopt 'The Precautionary Principal' of science, in support of children's safety in light of overwhelming scientific evidence is bewildering.

As taxpayers, we expect more from those who are supposed to be the educators of our nation.

It is the duty of public schools to provide a safe environment for ALL children to learn in, so that they may prosper academically as well as socially, without any exclusions, such as little Tyler from Royal Oak Middle School and our grandson, who will be attending public school in the fall.

Your response would be appreciated, (no form letter please)

Kind regards,

Parents for Safe Schools

Sunday, 8 May 2016

Letters to Superintendant for WiFi Free Area

No comments:

Post a Comment