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 Study, Reflex Study, Selbitz 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: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf
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.
Regards,
Marcus Schluschen
