HESA Meeting No. 34 HESA – Standing Committee on Health
Location 131 Queen St. – 7-52 Event Date Thursday, Oct 28, 2010 11:08 AM – 01:00 PM 1 Hour 52 Minutes
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=6720
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Petition to return to hardwired computers in schools http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/
Dear HESA committee members,
I listened to the meeting today about WiFi in schools, and thank you all for your concern about this important topic.
Unfortunately, once again Beth Pieterson has misrepresented the BioInitiative Report, among other things. When she said it was not peer-reviewed or considered balanced she missed its entire purpose. First, all of the 2000 studies considered in the report had been individually peer-reviewed when they were initially published. Second, for years, agencies such as Health Canada have been saying there are no studies showing harm due to exposure to electromagnetic radiation. These scientists, and others, knew this not to be true because they themselves had done such studies. Therefore over an extended period, several internationally renowned researchers reviewed the many studies done from many scientists from around the world over several decades which show harm. 2000 of them were summarized in the BioInitiative Report.
The Report was never intended to be ‘balanced’ but rather its purpose was to counter the statements saying there were no studies showing harm.
Health Canada refuses to acknowledge this report or any other showing harm. Again I ask for a formal inquiry to find out why.
As for the Precautionary Principle, Ms. Pieterson read the definition that Health Canada likes to use to define risk assessment, not the one used by the rest of the world. The Wingspread Conference’s formal Precautionary Principle, which has been invoked by the Supreme Court of Canada and expressly incorporated into a number of Federal and provincial statutes and policy statements, is:
“Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. “
There is threat to harm from electromagnetic radiation as shown and acknowledged even by Health Canada’s own commissioned report from the Royal Panel 1999. Health Canada, as demonstrated by Beth Pieterson, does not employ the Precautionary Principle but is waiting until proof is available before taking action. This is unconscionable, immoral, and, even perhaps, illegal. Again, I ask for a formal inquiry to find out why the precautionary principle is not being followed, especially with regards to children. Must we wait until the final proof which might be hundreds or thousands of people, most of them children, having heart problems and neurological disorders?
Finally, Beth Pieterson did not answer totally correctly when asked if other countries have stricter guidelines. She knows that many other countries have stricter guidelines, yet she said only Russia and they don’t enforce it. Why the obfuscation about guidelines? I have attached a chart showing standards in other countries. Please note this chart is based on information that is several years old and other countries have instituted tighter guidelines since the publication of the BioInitiative Report.
On behalf of many concerned citizens across Canada, I ask that you require that the precautionary principle be employed in schools with regard to WiFi. There is no justification to expose those most vulnerable to radiation all day every day merely for the convenience of WiFi. The same education can be achieved, more efficiently, through the use of wired connections to the internet. In fact, wired connectivity is faster, allows more data to be carried and is not easily hacked into. The only reason for WiFi is to allow the laptop to be carried. And for this we’re prepared to allow our children to be put at risk? Health Canada is failing in its job to protect us and I would ask again for a formal inquiry.
Respectfully,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, British Columbia
