Electromagnetic frequency standards unsatisfactory

The growing minority who recognize and understand the health ramifications of wireless exposure are justifiably concerned.

Re: “New transmitters prompt health worries for Chemainus family” (Citizen, Sept. 14).

Indeed it should. The growing minority who recognize and understand the health ramifications of wireless exposure are justifiably concerned.

Untold millions suffer from EMF sensitivity, including Gro Harlem Brundtland, former director general of the World Health Organization. There is plenty of research material available for anyone interested in learning about the bioeffects of EMF. The health ramifications of EMF are cumulative, compromising cell function, at low level exposure.

Lloyd’s of London, one of the largest insurers in the world, exempt coverage of claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

European countries are removing wi-fi in schools; meanwhile in Canada, we are increasing wireless components and buying more wireless devices for our children. Telus states “All electronic emissions in Canada are governed by Safety Code 6, one of the strictest codes in the developed world”. China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have exposure limits 100 times safer than Canada. (http://c4st.org/safety-code-6). It may be that “all wireless sites [individually] emit an RF signal that falls below safe levels …. “according to Telus spokesman Mr. Gilhooley. Rather, they emit continually and collectively with other sites, which increases harmful exposure together with cell towers, smart meters, cell phones, internet, wireless appliances, etc.

Industry Canada/Safety Code 6 does not measure for the multi-hour, multi-day exposure of today’s environment; nor the cumulative layered effects from multiple devices. Mr. Gilhooley also states: “Most Telus wireless sites come hundreds, if not thousands, of times below safe levels.”

What is safe? Bodies of scientists and doctors call for stricter safety standards for EMF because the existing ones are obsolete… and RF sources should be reduced as low as possible because it is not possible to establish a safe limit under which no biological effects can be observed. Lastly, the Municipality of North Cowichan states they have no such antenna-consultation policy. If I understand correctly from the Government of Canada website: “Innovation, Science and Economic Development” (Facts about Towers), yes they do. It’s time to get involved before an antenna comes to a roof top near you.

Karen Simmons