To all those charged with protection of the public: Help to have our voices heard.

—This is a letter we have sent to our Chief Medical Health Officer of British Columbia, Dr. Perry Kendall.

—We are asking for a meeting with Dr Kendall as this health threat falls under his jurisdiction.

-We are concerned about the health threats posed by exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation emitted from wireless computer networks.

–We also outline the corruption surrounding this issue.

–The people of Canada are crying out for biologically based EM Radiation exposure standards.

–Many experts think humans are risking epidemics due to excessive and unnecessary exposure to EM Radiation.

–Please support us. Write Dr.Kendall and insist his office start a process of reviewing these standards.

–Better still; join us when we meet Dr. Kendall, especially if you are an elected official.

— Many thanks especially to Una St Clair-Monitz from the Citizens for safe Technology for her great work on this issue!

All the best,

Walt McGinnis Co-chairman EM Radiation Health Alliance of British Columbia


To the Chief Medical Health Officer of British Columbia

Sept 9 2010

Dear Dr Kendall,

We have deep concerns regarding your lack of action to protect our children from Electromagnetic (EM) Radiation such as that emitted from wireless internet systems in our public schools.

The time has come when our health authorities lift the veil of secrecy and corruption surrounding this issue and accept the fact that the thermal exposure guidelines that the World Health Organization, (WHO) and Health Canada rely upon do not protect the public from harm.

We are requesting as citizens of British Columbia a meeting with you. We will present credible evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation at power levels below that which causes tissue heating to be harmful to humans. This is irrefutable evidence that Wi-Fi networks pose a potentially serious health threat and should be removed from public schools.

In your email response to Mr. McGinnis concerning your statement to the media that there was no evidence that wireless networks were harmful you said,

“My statements regarding the risk from Wi-Fi networks are taken directly from the WHO information pages and summary of research into the effects of Wi-Fi presented therein. I consider the WHO to be an unbiased source”

By all rational measurements the WHO is very biased towards the desires of the worldwide electrical industry who do not want biologically based exposure standards. They have a long history of being manipulated and controlled by corporate interests and have been involved in many scandals.  What is most troubling is the head of the EM Radiation division of the WHO, Dr Michael Repacholi resigned in 2006 in disgrace when it was found out by the public that he was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the electrical industry. Dr Repacholi has a long history of protecting corporate interests and ignoring the health and safety of the public and has been the co-author of many exposure standards world wide, including Canada’s existing standards. Through ongoing corporate funding and a prevailing corporatist ideology the electrical industry has dominated and controlled the WHO and blocked the setting meaningful public exposure regulations.  The WHO can not be trusted as an unbiased source of information. Please review Dr. Don Maish’s paper “Conflict of interest and Bias in Advisory Agencies.

Dr Maish sums up regarding the inaction of the WHO and Repacholi’s behavior, “Such a blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of credible science as well as the Who’s mission on protecting World Health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if the cost is the integrity of the WHO.”

Health Canada often quotes the WHO with well crafted statements like “the consensus of the international community is there is no credible evidence that there is a health risk to the public when exposed to EM radiation below the existing safety limits”. Essentially the international community they refer to is the international standards setting agencies that are infiltrated and controlled by corporations.

The Health Act outlines the role of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO).

“As senior medical health officer for (BC), the PHO’s responsibilities include:

-advising the Minister and senior members of the ministry on health issues in BC and on the need for legislation, policies and practices concerning those issues;

-monitoring the health of the people of BC;

-providing information and analyses on health issues;

-reporting to the public on health issues, the need for legislation, a change of policy, or practice respecting health in BC.”

I see nowhere that your mandate is to rely solely on an organization like the World Health Organization that is outside the control of any governmental oversight, and has proven itself to be corrupt. Your job is to protect the health of the public in anyway you possibly can. When accessing a potential health threat the citizens of British Columbia expect and deserve that you leave no stone unturned when gathering evidence. In this case you have neglected to examine the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that show that human exposure to radio frequency radiation such as that emitted from wireless computer networks is very harmful. Please read at least the introduction of the BioInnitiative Report that provides a rationale for biologically based public exposure standards.

You must also be aware that other health agencies have taken a more scientific approach regarding accessing the threat of EM Radiation on the public, and have accepted independent expert opinion. For instance, Sir William Stewart, Chairman of Britain’s National Radiological Board and Chairman of the Health Protection Agency has been quoted as saying that “children under eight years old should not be allowed to use cellular telephones”. Wireless networks generally operate at lower power levels than cellular phones but because of the number of units operating and the duration of the exposure the biological effects are just as ,if not more serious.

In 1999, the Board of Health of Toronto, Ontario approved a policy of prudent avoidance of EM Radiation and imposed an EM Radiation output limit on cellular base stations of one hundredth of Safety Code Six. This was equivalent to the United States Federal Communications (FCC) limit. This was to take into account the reported non thermal effects of EM Radiation exposure. We are asking you to do the same.


Walt McGinnis and Chris Anderson Co-chair EM Radiation Health Alliance of B.C. ; 250 652 5606