C4ST Letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun re: HESA Report

Vancouver Sun
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

Dear Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Neufeld

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

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/11589857/Is-Wi-Fi-making-your-child-ill.html?fb_ref=Default

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.

http://www.ibtimes.com/international-scientists-warn-against-em-radiation-emitted-electronic-gadgets-1920862#.VVaumYPmuRs.facebook

Symptoms of Wifi in schools

Frank Clegg, C4ST talking about the symptoms children experience from the radiation exposure from WiFi installed in the schools.

https://vimeo.com/71750893

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.

http://sputniknews.com/science/20150512/1022019139.html

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxWBdUBxJ_Y

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.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/video/11519149-seen-at-11-is-wi-fi-making-you-sick/

Scientists Decry Canada’s Outdated Wi-Fi Safety Rules

International Scientists Appealed to the United Nations to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology

We must encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.  These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide.

http://emfscientist.org/index.php

Canadian Medical Association Journal reports Health Canada's wireless limits are "A Disaster to Public Health"

The Canadian Medical Association called out Health Canada for not doing its job of protecting the public and published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones, Wifi and wireless devices.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1532755/canadian-medical-association-journal-reports-health-canada-s-wireless-limits-are-a-disaster-to-public-health

Scientists Decry Canada’s Outdated Wi-Fi Safety Rules

The article points out that Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health recently completed three days of hearings on Canada's safety guidelines, and sent federal scientists back to the office to re-examine 140 recent studies that show wireless radiation emitted by wireless devices can cause harm.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/9/639.full

Health Experts Say Cancer Threat From Cell Phones is Greater Than We Think

“I think part of the problem here is that the reassurances we keep getting from the manufacturers and distributors of WiFi – Rogers, Bell and whatever – and Health Canada are not sufficiently satisfactory, particularly for the possible risks to children,” Miller said

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/health-experts-say-cancer-threat-from-cell-phones-is-greater-than-we-think-162857426.html

LAUSD Teacher Reports Students Bleeding from Ear and Nose

The teacher stated, “The students are having nosebleeds and the main offices are refusing to do incident reports. I have had two seventh grade students bleeding out of their ears.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wghaMbzRnb4

Is Wifi making your child ill?

Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe “At the moment people think their children are safe because the router is far away – or we don’t have to worry about the phone because it’s not near the brain. That’s common sense but unfortunately we now know it’s not quite true,” she says, pointing out that the brain is better protected than some more vulnerable parts of the body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/11589857/Is-Wi-Fi-making-your-child-ill.html

The Parliamentary Health Committee has directed Health Canada to provide a FULL scientific monograph on the 140 studies showing harm we identified missing from Safety Code 6.

This is NOT the recommendations based on the recent hearings but an additional motion that passed last Thursday April 30th!

"It was agreed, — That the Standing Committee on Health direct Health Canada to provide detailed information in the form of a full scientific monograph on the reasons for acceptance or rejection of 140 studies on EMR submitted by Canadians for Safe Technologies with regards to Safety Code 6."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=7952040&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA) Investigation into Safety Code 6 2015  - Health Canada is NOT Protecting Us

Listen to three days of testimony from Scientist, Medical Experts and the Industry on the Health Effects from Microwave Radiation Exposure from Wireless Devices.  There is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving this exposure is hurting our children in school.

http://www.c4st.org/HESA2015

Your iPhone could cause irreversible eye damage and even make you blind, researchers warn

"Never before in human history have we exposed our eyes to light that is so intense, for such long periods, from such an early age," she says

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/049489_iPhone_eye_damage_blindness.html

The Dangers of Wi-Fi (Wireless Radiation WiFi WLAN Internet Electromagnetic EMF side effects)

Wi-Fi connects electronic devices to wireless computer networks (wireless LAN) using electromagnetic radiation. Wi-Fi is installed in homes, schools, offices, stores, hotels, coffee shops, airports, libraries, hospitals, public buildings and even entire sections of cities. Wi-Fi signals are, unlike TV and radio signals, strong enough to penetrate concrete walls. Many health experts consider Wi-Fi radiation to be dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avANkBWCDaE


Please contact your MP and let them know you support Bill C-648

URGENT - Call for Support Re: Watkins EHS Injunction

Thank you for all the incredible support, it has helped me immensely. Could you please tell your readers that I thank them, and I that I have been trawling through their emails. I have read every one to date.  I have to stop replying for a while as I need to focus my work on Jodie's case tonight and also tomorrow. Jodie's Court appearance is tomorrow (Friday) and after it I will make time and reply to each and every one of you. 

Please don't stop sending emails, I need them to keep coming,  keep sending any info, any critique. and feedback as it has really helped strengthen Jodie's argument and opened my eyes to EHS and it related syndromes. 

I am currently working on getting pledges sorted and printed and Jodie will be coming in the morning to help me, keep the pledges coming.  We will give you, the Court and the media a grand total of the pledge support and let every one know what a group of like minded and compassionate people can do in rallying together in times of crisis and need.

By the way some readers have requested paying or depositing money in an account, please note that neither I nor Jodie have a trust account and we therefore cannot accept any money at all. There is no need to send any money, just pledges is what is required.

Thank you so much for everything, I am absolutely amazed at the amount of wonderful letters of support for Jodie, I can tell you all that before Peter and others became involved her batteries were becoming flat, but since everyone has banded together to help join her in this monumental fight she is now all charged up (excuse the pun) and no longer alone and isolated with her EHS.

On a final note, please feel free to bombard the media with your support for Jodie,  tell the world that she is appearing in the Supreme Court of Tasmania tomorrow at 2:15pm, please spread the word, the internet is such a powerful tool.

Lets show the world that EHS does exist.

Kindest regards,

Ray

rjbroomhall@hotmail.com

Raymond J Broomhall   ABN: 19 811 830 629
Barrister at Law

Mob: 0447 725 254


Dear
Help is needed from your contacts and readers, please see below.
It is about time authorities realize that Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome (NHS) is a real and legally recognised ailment. There is a case called McDonald v Comcare where EHS  was finally recognised by the Courts as an ailment in Australia. The McDonald case is authority that a person does not have to prove that Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) actually harms them, they only have to prove that they have a reasonable belief that EMR will harm.

To establish that Jodie has formed a reasonable belief and that her belief is not fanciful, she needs something factual and provide evidence that formed her reasonable belief that EMR will harm her.

This is what formed her reasonable belief.

Jodie was diagnosed by three independent doctors and having EHS, one of them was the same doctor who gave evidence in the McDonald case. The Dr's also stated that if the tower is turned on it will cause serious health problems to Jodie and will also cause her home to become uninhabitable to her.

Further two electromagnetic experts conducted a joint survey in regards to Jodie's symptoms and exposure to EMR from a separate tower that was operational and emitting EMR in another area, it was noted in the report that she suffered detrimental health symptoms at the exposure to the EMR from that tower and concluded that the proposed NBN tower neighbouring her land if turned on would be a probable hazard to her health.

The law says that a person has the right to the use and  enjoyment of their land without any interference from neighbours. NBN Co has designed and constructed a device with the clear intent to pollute its neighbours with EMR.

Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act states that EMR is a pollutant and that the emission of a pollutant onto neighbouring land is a nuisance if it interferes with the use and enjoyment of land. The Local Government Act states at 201 that the General Manager of the Council  (Huon Valley Council) may abate a nuisance if "there is immediate danger to any person or property".

Jodie made a complaint to the council only a few week ago requesting the Council issue an abatement notice against NBN Co.  The Council refused to issue an abatement notice.

We will argue that the Council has a duty to protect Jodie from pollution (EMR) that interferes with her enjoyment of her land. Even though in this case the Council decided not to abate, they did so at their own peril, because the duty still exits, and Jodie may possibly include the Council in a suit for negligence if the tower is turned on if she is forced to leave her home and is injured by the EMR.

Not only does the Council have a duty to protect Jodie, but now because it is in legislation, the Court also has a duty to protect her.  That is why I am seeking an injunction to permanently restrain NBN from turning on the tower or pulling  the EMR trigger.

Clearly Jodie is in immediate danger, if I may use an analogy to explain: Imagine a neighbour is building a large machine gun, bolted securely to the ground,  aimed directly at your home, it is in full view of you, you see it every day, then one day you see the neighbour load the gun with unlimited bullets and you are told by your neighbour that he/she intends to fire that gun at you and your house continuously, day in and day out, bombarding you for eternity with a hail of bullets,  you become extremely anxious and fearful that the neighbour is actually going to pull the trigger. This is the analogy I am going to use in the Court in regards to what NBN Co have done in constructing the tower and their intention to emit EMR every day onto Jodie's land on a permanent basis.

The tort of nuisance is a powerful legal  tool to use in Court. NBN Co have a duty to use their own property as not to injure their neighbour. That's the law. All Jodie has to do is prove that physical damage will occur to her land (contaminated with EMR to render uninhabitable), or injury to health such as headaches (EHS and Dr's report) etc which prevents her from enjoying the use of her land.

NBN Co are using the ARPANSA safety standard as the main reason why they feel they can turn the tower on.  NBN Co and Malcolm Turnbull (Minister for Communications and head of NBN Co)  have said that the tower's  EMR emissions will comply with the APANSA standard. The ARPANSA standard states that EMR emissions are safe to the "general public"  between 3kHz to 300GHz, and admits in its own standard that 'some people have abnormal sensitivities' to EMR. Jodie is a person that comes under that exception.  

Jodie is being discriminated for her "abnormal sensitivity", she has been on a disabled pension since 1997 due to this health condition. The legislation that allows the ARPANSA safety guideline to be used actually has  attached to it  a "declaration" that "this legislation does not interfere with Australia's Human Rights obligations".

We will argue that the legislation goes against its misleading declaration as it does interfere with her human rights and that it discriminates against her because of her disability.

We will use that argument amongst many other to seek a permanent injunction to stop NBN co from pulling the trigger. We have filed a writ, and statement of claim. The writ enable us to sue and the court action will amount to a huge trial with a large amount of evidence, with witnesses and experts to be examined and cross examined, submissions made to the Court etc. The defence (NBN Co) and Jodie (the plaintiff) need time to prepare for trial, and then attend and argue at trial heard, until finally the Court publishes it decision. This matter could take months or years to conclude.

Whilst we are in the process for preparing for trial and I have applied for an interim (temporary)  injunction, this interim injunction will stop NBN Co from pulling the trigger on a temporary basis until such time as the original trail is heard and determined by the Court, this interim injunction could be in place for months or years until either a permanent injunction is awarded or until Jodie loses the fight, the interim (temporary)  injunction is lifted and NBN Co are allowed turn on the tower. 

To grant an interim injunction the  Court will  insist that Jodie provides an undertaking that if she loses the trial that she will pay NBN Co's legal costs and economic loses ( ie lost revenue, contactors wages, internet carriers contractual loses etc) to cover the term of the interim injunction. The Court has indicated that it believes that Jodie does not have the assets or means to cover NBN Co's potential loses even if she gave an undertaking undertaking as NBN Co could potentially lose millions of dollars whist the injunction is in place.

To put it bluntly, Jodie has no option but to place her home up as a security and all that she owns, and even that will not be enough to satisfy NBN Co.

I will argue that NBN Co will need to provide real evidence of their potential loss which in the circumstance will be extremely hard for them to quantify loss in such a short time before we appear on Friday to have the interim injunction application heard.

Further NBN Co were fully aware of her health condition before they constructed the tower and even before they were granted planning approval by council. Yet they continued to build the tower and may I say completely at their own peril.  

The beauty of a nuisance claim is that we are going to the court of equity, the Supreme Court has this function and can override legislation if it believes that legislation is inequitable and/or unconscionable. Telecommunication regulators such as ACMA in legislation do not have to give a financial undertaking if they place an injunction against the public or private individuals. 

It would be unconscionable and unequitable  to allow regulators to waive having to give an undertaking, but making Jodie do so. It would be inequitable that Jodie's finances compared to that of the Federal Government via NBN Co's unlimited resources. 

It would be unconscionable to allow a person let alone a corporation to harm and injure a person merely because the victim does not have the means to pay an undertaking to stop them from harming her health.

Jodie also has been diagnosed with Chemical sensitivity, and she reacts badly to formaldehyde, which is found in most paints, glues, carpets, chipboard and laminates, laminex etc. She lived in the bush in a tent for 5 years away from society in a bid to protect her from chemicals and EMR.  She finally purchased a 10 acre secluded block of land that was virtually free from EMR and she constructed a formaldehyde free home with her bare hands whilst on a disabled pension. She even grows her own chemical free food on the land.  If the tower is turned on she will be forced to live back in the bush somewhere where their is no EMR emissions. She cant move into a normal house because of her chemical sensitivity and she will become homeless.

To force Jodie out of her home because she doesn't have the means to pay an undertaking if required would be an unconscionable act.  The Court of equity hopefully will step in and override the legislative requirement of giving an undertaking as being completely unconscionable and grant that a monetary undertaking should be waived in Jodie's case.

That is what we are up against, we have a few hurdles, it will be a monumental battle, I am representing Jodie on a pro bono (no fee) basis, but I feel that in the interests of justice that Jodie gets relief on behalf of all EHS sufferers, it is the least I can do.

You and I  can help by spreading the word, alerting everyone of Jodie's predicament, maybe some kind soul can pledge to the court to help add to the undertaking, such as an unwanted block of land or some asset of value, even just one dollar would help, write a letter addressed to me for the attention of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and in that letter note what items of value they undertake to give to NBN Co should Jodie fail in her bid.

These letters, and I hope many will flood in before Friday, will be invaluable as it may help in persuading the Court to waive the undertaking.

I hope this clarifies what Jodie is  trying to do.  If she wins this case, then it will set a precendent for all EHS suffers to be protected from NBN towers, smart meters and the like. 

Finally a solution is at hand for all, lets grab this opportunity, and fight for Jodie and for justice.

Kind regards,

Raymond J Broomhall   ABN: 19 811 830 629
Barrister at Law

Mob: 0447 725 254

Michael Kirby Chambers

Health Canada is NOT protecting the public - Safety Code 6 Is Under Investigation By The Parliamentary Health Committee! HESA

The Vote Was Unanimous! Victoria School District #61

Motion by Trustee Deborah Nohr, to establish an Ad Hoc Committee as per Bylaw 9140, “Technology Stewardship” for the following purposes: review of the current status of technology in our schools, review of the EMF research findings (2011-2015) based on peer reviewed independent scientific studies, review of cost implications for the operating budged based on the goals of the I.T. Department, review of health and safety procedures/directives for all of our schools and consideration for establishing one elementary school that provides technology using hard wired internet connections for student learning.

https://district.public.sd61.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2015/04/04-13-15-Reg-OPPs-Packup.pdf

NOTE: Neighbouring Saanich School District has hard wired Internet for Elementary Schools and only 25% Wifi coverage including staffing area for the Middle Schools. Some of the schools have a no cellphone or wireless devices during school hours rule which also includes teachers.  Saanich School District has decided to take the Precautionary Principal and not to expose the children to a 2b carcinogen.

Safety Code 6 Is Under Investigation By The Parliamentary Health Committee! HESA
• Health Canada admits studies show harm at levels below Safety Code 6.
• Health Canada ignores the scientific research; its review is subject to bias and incorrect conclusions.
• Health Canada ignores 2010 HESA recommendations to proactively inform Canadians about adverse effects of EMR exposure.
• Health Canada admits there are NO studies regarding the cumulative effects from several devices from wireless radiation.

http://www.c4st.org/HESA2015

California Medical Association House of Delegates Resolution 107- 14 - Wireless Standards Reevaluation 2014 - PASSED

Resolved 1    That CMA supports efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure levels associated with wireless communication devices, including consideration of adverse non-thermal biologic and health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications; and be it further
Resolved 2    That CMA support efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/california-medical-association-resolution-on-wireless.html

5 Facts Every Parent Should Know About EMF's

“You may not realize it, but you are participating in an unauthorized experiment – ‘the largest biological experiment ever.'”

http://www.mommypotamus.com/5-facts-every-parent-should-know-about-emfs/

Legal and Public Health Problems of the Wireless Age

Today, Microwave Sickness is known as Electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).  Symptoms can include but are not limited to extreme pounding headaches, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and muscular weakness in the presence of Wi-Fi and commensurate exposures.  In Sweden, the government acknowledges that the problem, which it terms a functional impairment, is affecting 3% of its population and provides accommodation in the form of hospitals without Wi-Fi, wireless-free transport, schools and workplaces and wired and shielded housing to accommodate people.

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2014/09/legal-and-public-health-problems-of-the-wireless-age.html

Victoria School Board Presentation April 13th 2015

Motion: That School District No. 61 ( Greater Victoria ) establish an Ad Hoc committee as per Bylaw 9140, ‘Technology Stewardship’ for the purpose of developing guidelines for the safer use of technology for our students and staff. 

Before beginning our presentation, we would like to take a moment to draw your attention to the fact that Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is currently under investigation by the Parliamentary Health Committee.  Your handouts include a fact sheet from the first of three committee sessions and a letter to Health Canada from the non-profit Canadians for Safe Technology.

School Board Presentation
April 13, 2015

Good evening trustees,

My name is Camille Victoire and this is Janice Boothman. We are parents at Margaret Jenkins Elementary School.

We are here tonight in support of the motion to establish a Technology Stewardship Committee.  Both Janice and I have extensive experience in Information Technology and fully understand its benefits.  At home we use various technologies as tools to support our childrens’ learning.  We also recognize the vital importance of using these tools responsibly and in a safe manner.

YOUR mission statement is: The Greater Victoria School District is committed to each student's success in learning within a responsive and safe environment.

We are all aware that the use of wireless technologies may have long term health consequences.  The World Health Organization designated EMF in the 2B possible carcinogen category.  To ensure  the school environment is safe, as per your mission statement, the School Board MUST actively monitor new information from all reputable sources including The World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the GOLD standard of science:  peer reviewed research.   This is a daunting responsibility, but critical to safeguard the health of 18,000 students in the district. .

As you can see in your handout, we cannot rely on Health Canada alone to protect our children.  Health Canada’s history has proven to be slow in reacting and we only need to look at their delayed response to thalidomide and asbestos to see the devastating consequences of acting too slowly.   We cannot sit on our hands and wait for government to step up, not when the use of these devices is regulated by Industry Canada and driven by trillion dollar industries.

And, is it ethical, or even legal, to put all our faith in a government entity with such a poor track record and willingly turn a blind eye to the warnings we have all heard on this subject?

Switching gears, last Winter, Janice, her husband, and I met with Mr. Pat Duncan.  At the time, it was our understanding that Mr. Duncan was responsible for keeping apprised of all new information on the safety of wireless technologies.  When we met with Mr. Duncan in his office back in February 2014, he made it abundantly clear he does not believe there are any risks associated with the use of wireless technologies. Personally, if I were tasked with having to monitor a risk, where I believe there was NO risk, this would certainly not be a priority for me.   

Who is actively monitoring this information now, and how frequently? 
What is being monitored? 
Is it being documented?
Is the monitoring process documented?  

In view of the considerable stakes, this information should be accessible and available to parents and teachers.  It is imperative that there is accountability and transparency here.

Janice:  The Technology Stewardship Committee is a NECESSITY. Medical and Scientific reports that continue to emerge must be reviewed and compliance with safety guidelines from wireless devices must be achieved.

When I went to pick up my kids at Margaret Jenkins School, just prior to the end of the school day, I walked up the main set of stairs towards the library, and in the hall were 2 girls with iPad.  One was seated with the iPad on her lap, and the other was leaning against the wall with the iPad up against her chest.  This is very concerning because these devices were not being used in accordance with the safety guidelines of the manufacturer of the devices! 

This clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding in the school community about how to use these devices safety, and shows the need for education and guidance. 

Apple’s own manual states”  To be sure that human exposure to RF energy does not exceed the FCC, IC and European Union guidelines, always follow these instructions and precautions: Orient the device…away from your body…

As the Board of Education, you have a responsibility to inform students and faculty about how to properly use devices and technology provided by the schools, and WHY it is important to use them safely.  The Technology Stewardship committee would be able to assist with this.

Camille:  We need you to think about the future of 18,000 children in your charge.  Think about their health and the long term effects of bio-accumulative radiation.  We need the school district to do your DUE DILEGINCE and ensure that safety measures are established, documented, communicated and followed up, and that emerging scientific findings are being reviewed on a regular basis.  We NEED this committee to ensure we are all doing our best to safeguard the health of our children.

Terence Young, a member of Canadian parliament, has recently introduced Bill C-648 into the House Of Commons. This bill “An Act Respecting the Prevention of Potential Health Risks From Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation” would require manufacturers of all wireless devices to place specific health warning labels clearly on the outside of their packaging.

We are hopeful for these small steps in the right direction.

Technology is the way of the future and it is advancing at an impressive rate. A committee driven by passionate individuals who are keen to understand and explore how students can be enriched by the use of the tools in a safe and responsible manner can only benefit us all. Please support this important motion.

Thank you very much!