Email from someone I know who is sensitive to electromagnetic waves! Perhaps, you get headaches too on a cloudy day when air pressure and water particles in the air you breathe impacts radio frequencies! In any event, an aspirin helps, but that is not all the story.
Water particles, metal particles, moisture are all the modifiers of radio waves. You might not notice pain right now, but like in the case of ultra violet light your eyes and blood might be already sensitised? You are body magnetic electric!
You might be aware of those who think heat is the only thing we need to look at?
Hello everyone,Health Canada has asked The Royal Society of Canada to review safety code 6, which recommends safety limits on microwave radiation (wireless). There seems to be some persons on the panel that have private interests that would make this a conflict of interest. As this is very important to the health of all Canadians, we need to ensure that any members of the panel with a conflict of interest not be included in the review.
Please take the time to email Lori Penner, the woman who is organizing the petition with your name, city/town and province.
Thanks, Melissa
https://rsc-src.ca/en/expert-panels/rsc-reports/review-safety-code-6-potential-health-risks-radiofrequency-fields-from
Call to Action!
We need your signatures before end of today to let The Royal Society of Canada know of our concerns re the constitution of the expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radio frequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices.'
Please read below and email Lori at lorraine.penner@gmail.com with your name, city/town, and province to be added to the petition. Put 'add me to the petition that has concerns about the SC6'.
------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
With every respect for the Royal Society of Canada's reputation for professionalism and integrity, we are concerned about the constitution of your expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radio frequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices.' There is at least the appearance of significant potential for bias and/or conflict of interest among some of its members, and we urge strongly that the Royal Society reconstitute the panel (even if it means beginning the study afresh) solely of members with
(i) no appreciably material link, past or present, in their personal or professional lives to the wireless telecommunications industry and (ii) who have not staked an academic or otherwise public reputation on a specific view of the adequacy of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 or the potential health effects, or lack thereof, of radio frequency fields from wireless telecommunications devices.
It would be regrettable for the impartiality of any of your reports to be called into question, or for the authority and reputation of the Royal Society to be compromised in any way, and we are sure you would agree that those experts with such links and/or existing positions ought to be removed from the panel.
While it is right and laudable for the Royal Society to have, as it appears to have done, attempted to staff this panel with members from diverse personal, professional and (somewhat diverse) geographical backgrounds, only those individuals capable of approaching an expert panel study with no potential for prejudice respecting the subject of that study, and no appearance of potential for such prejudice, ought to participate in that expert panel if it is designed to be "independent, comprehensive and evidence-based input into the public policy development process of Canada," as the Royal Society website describes its work.
We therefore, and without any wish to impugn the credibility of these individuals generally, question the inclusion in this particular panel of, for example, Dr. Daniel Krewski, who has been involved in studies partially funded by the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association; Dr. Louise Lemyre, a close colleague of Dr. Krewski and whose credentials in social psychology in any event would appear ill-suited to a study of the biological effects of radio frequency radiation; Dr. Kenneth Foster, who has made an academic position clear in a set of book reviews recently published in the journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in which he expresses skepticism of claims of radio frequency radiation health effects; Dr. John Moulder, who is alleged to have "earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community" (Microwave News - http://microwavenews.com/RR.html); and Dr.Frank Prato, who has made public statements questioning the wisdom of precautionary measures by public authorities against potential health effects from radio frequency radiation, and thus holds an existing and publicly stated position on the policy question.
The matter of health effects from radio frequency radiation and the use of wireless communication devices is one of the great looming public policy concerns of our time, touching, because of the extensive proliferation of wireless technologies, the health of nearly every Canadian (including our susceptibility to cancer and neurological and cardiac disorders, and our fertility and the integrity of our genetic heritage), touching the politics and philosophy of precaution in public policy, the question of corporate influence in public policy, and both current and future health-care costs of all Canadian taxpayers. Before a senior, respected and authoritative body like the Royal Society issues serious and influential policy advice on a matter of such broad public import, surely it would behoove the body to gather for that purpose a panel of not only capable, qualified and knowledge-seeking but also completely neutral-minded scientists whose sole purposes are to discover the truth of the matter and make reasoned recommendations based on their honest findings, untainted by bias or conflict of interest, the potential for bias or conflict of interest or even the perception of same. Any other course would be a profound disservice to Canadians, an abdication of societal responsibility whose dangerous consequences could resonate for generations to come. We trust the Royal Society will take its moral position seriously, take every appropriate measure to maintain the integrity of this expert panel report and in so doing retain the deserved trust of right-thinking Canadians.
Yours faithfully,
