Login / RegisterCellular tower opponents laud NDP MPs Libby Davies, Alex Atamanenko
Two NDP MPs in B.C. have earned the kudos of a coalition of 26 groups from across Canada concerned about the effects wireless technology, cellular towers, and other “public microwave exposures” have on the human brain.
Today (April 18) the umbrella organization known as the Wireless Radiation Safety Council issued a report card on the five main political parties ahead of the May 2 federal election.
The Conservatives received an F grade, the Liberals a C, the Bloc Québécois and Greens a B, and the NDP a B+.
“New Democrat MPs Libby Davies [Vancouver East] and Alex Atamanenko [British Columbia Southern Interior] have also offered their support for the most important cause of the 21st Century,” the council states in the report card. “The NDP gets an ”˜A’ for effort and ”˜B+’ for effectiveness.”
In February, Davies and Vancouver-Hastings NDP MLA Shane Simpson organized a community meeting on cell towers at Kiwassa Neighbourhood House.
Meanwhile, the council noted that, over the last year, the parliamentary standing committee on health met to discuss microwave radiation and human health.
“The Conservatives held a majority on that Committee but failed to listen to the expert warnings from scientists around the world and from within our country,” the report cards states. “They have failed to act to protect our children.”
People that are actually concerned with cellphone towers should take a look at the miriad of services that have been (and are being) broadcast at similar wavelengths and energies: FM radio, AM radio, GPS, UHF and VHF over-the-air television, satellite phones, the NRC time signal, your home portable phone, your wireless router, your bluetooth devices, ... I could go on.
Admittedly my list spans a decade or so in frequencies, but the physical processes these photons experience are all basically the same. Most importantly, they don't photo-ionize (ie. they don't break molecular bonds).
I am more concerned with the social impact of having cellphone coverage everywhere, including while we drive are cars, or the distraction provided to children in classrooms.
Some random thoughts....
-Arlo
Sure. Okay.
The problem is they didn't even consider the electrical properties of wireless devices called humans or that you would be very vulnerable to emf exposure. Regarding Wi-Fi exposure in schools, studies showed it was safe but the studies negated to mention a frequency conflict. The whole science is based on whether the power density per sq. cm is enough to burn people.
No disrespect to people on this topic but the first professionals required in the discussion are electrical professionals so they can validate the frequency conflict and humans can be induced by emfs. Health Canada says inducing people with emfs is to be avoided because experimantal studies have shown it can lead to nerve and muscle depolarization.
We create electricity with emfs and humans aren't designed for electromagnetic fields. Here is a link so you can see more on the important subject. There is a link to Health Canada's Safety Code 6
and the recommendations of the standing committee for Health Canada to investigate the error reported. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=55
To clear things up for you, thermoguy points out that "professionals" didn't recognize all of the EMF-generating devices in the room, and they should have identified laptops as devices emitting radiation. That is a mistake, but on the whole this is okay because these devices are emitting only a few watts at most, and at quite low frequencies.
Furthermore, the link to Health Advisory report uses measurements of total luminosity in the various radio-frequency bands during normal operating hours (when wlan routers, bluetooth devices, and laptops would all be working away). These measurements did not discriminate between WLAN APs or laptops and include the total signal, yet they still barely detected any signs of radiation (they could use some better equipment, though this would only confirm the weakness of the EMF signal).
That is key. Microwave radiation is non-ionizing. It's incapable of causing the sort of damage at the cellular level of which the anti-cell-phone, anti-Wi-Fi, anti-power-line crowd first accused it, so now we hear only vague concerns about unspecified health issues _for which there is absolutely no evidence_. It's quackery, not science, and deserves to be treated as such.