On the run from radio frequencies

Some Canadians go to great lengths to escape waves of radiation from electronics that are considered harmless

Refugees in their own land

Simon Hayter/Maclean's

As the mother of two young girls, Samantha Boutet does what she believes is necessary to protect her family. That’s why, with the spread of radio frequencies from increasingly common wireless technology, Boutet is a refugee in her own land. The naturopathic doctor and her two daughters are relocating more than 600 km east of their home in Maple Ridge, B.C., to a small cabin in a remote valley in B.C.’s Kootenay mountains.

The decision was spurred by a series of health problems affecting her older daughter, Amelia, which started in Grade 4. For more than a year, Amelia suffered from deep headaches, nagging nausea, inexplicable muscle soreness, tingling extremities, and insomnia, Boutet says. Eventually, after visiting a number of specialists, the family doctor diagnosed Amelia with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), a medical condition that involves a range of non-specific symptoms attributed to electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), much like those described by sufferers of multiple-chemical sensitivity, another environmental illness believed to be caused by low-level exposure to chemicals. “I felt really bad because her body was telling her there was something wrong, and I was telling her there couldn’t be, and I couldn’t understand why she was behaving the way she was,” says Boutet.

EMFs are invisible radioactive frequencies emitted from radio towers, WiFi routers, cellphones, wireless laptops, TV remotes—even the new smart meters that measure water and electricity use and beam information to the utilities. These non-ionizing radioactive waves travel through the air at much lower frequencies than ionizing radiation (which includes X-rays and gamma rays) and are widely considered harmless. And due to the proliferation of technology that releases them, others like Amelia, now 11, feel as if their health is being compromised. They can either live with their pain, or flee to backcountry refuges. “It’s not that I’m just worried,” Boutet says. “My older daughter will be deathly sick, so we have to leave.”

In the U.S., people are flocking to the tiny town of Green Bank, W.Va., part of the country’s Radio Quiet Zone. No wireless is allowed within 33,000 square kilometres so the waves don’t interfere with telescopes operated by an astronomy observatory and the U.S. military.

The World Health Organization says that “there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure,” and there are indications these symptoms “may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions,” namely stress from worries about exposure.

Health Canada, meanwhile, maintains electromagnetic frequency does not pose a threat. According to the government department, devices like cellphones and radio towers emit waves at levels “thousands of times” lower than the threshold where it would harm human health, according to spokesman Stéphane Shank. As long as exposure remains below that, Health Canada says “there is no convincing evidence that this equipment is dangerous.” They do agree that “additional research is warranted” into a possible link to cancer.

Una St. Clair, director of Citizens for Safe Technology, isn’t convinced. She has been scouring the B.C. Interior for areas “free from all this poison in the air.” St. Clair, who has also been diagnosed with EHS by a doctor, doesn’t leave her house without a special hat and an undershirt woven with silver that is meant to ward off electromagnetic waves. For her, the fact that people are willing to drop everything and move is evidence enough that electromagnetic frequencies cause harm. “Apprehension doesn’t make people leave their lives behind or quit their jobs,” she says.

Lucy Sanford, a former Toronto real estate agent, had been in a decade-long battle with anxiety, insomnia, periodic body numbness, breathing trouble and other ailments when she became depressed, even suicidal. After moving out of the city to the small Lake Erie community of Crystal Beach, Ont., Sanford feels better, and blames her past troubles on electromagnetic waves. For her, there’s no doubt technology is taking a toll. “We know it’s there. We don’t need the proof,” she says. “We are the proof.”


On the run from radio frequencies

  1. We don’t need proof? We are the proof? That sounds an awful lot like Jenny McCarthy’s statement that her “proof” that vaccines caused autism was her autistic son, Evan. Of course, she turned out to be flat-out wrong and her crusade against vaccines has endangered the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who turned down life-saving vaccines for their families, and increased the risks of contracting dangerous diseases for people who cannot be vaccinated and rely on herd immunity. Fortunately this lot isn’t advocating against important public health measures, but their claims are equally dubious. It would have been great if Maclean’s had referenced any one of the studies and reviews that have found no connection at all between electro-magnetic waves and EMF sensitivity.

    • Yes, and they also said this about asbestos and tobacco. A lot of people got sick and died before there was proof of harm. BTW, the studies that found no connection between electomagnetic waves and EMF sensitivity were industry funded.

      • Joe, did you realize that for tobacco there *was* solid science showing that snmoking it was harmful? It wasn’t that prevented healthful regulations societal change, it was the tobacco companies deliberately spreading misinformation through puppet institutes, puppet scientists and waging legal lobbying wars against new laws and taxes. That smoking causes cancer was first conclusively shown in the early 1930s and and the broad consensus was there by 1950 – except for those few industry puppets mentioned above. This consensus took less than 20 years to crystalize.

        For so-called “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”, however, the case is very different. Research has been don for *more* than 20 years on it – it’s hardly a new claim – and no evidence whatsoever has been found to support it. None at all.

        There’s no conspiracy here – using scholar.google.com or PubMed you can find the relevant studies yourself and see that people who claim EHS exhibit symptoms when they are told a fake, non-transmitting wifi gateway ha sbeen turned on. Similarly, when a real wifi gateway is on, and they are told it has been tuned off but it is still on, their symptoms disappear. And when asked to tell whether such a gateway is on or off based on whether they feel their usual symptoms, they do no better than you or I would with random guessing. They fail double-blind trials

        So what does 20+ years of no supporting evidence for EHS and symptoms that appear to be psychosomatic look like to you?

    • There is no definitive proof of anything not even snow falling from the sky only ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ but that is beside the point. if I don’t want a smart meter on my home, the place where my family is supposed to be able to go for rest and repose where one can turn off their cell phone or computer or TV then in Canada I should have the choice but I don’t. Just look down at your feet and concentrate really hard and you will begin to see the invisible shackles that this society has placed upon yoru ankles while you were sleeping. And although your take on vaccines is totally misguided I fail to see the connection.

      • The connection is very clear to me. Radiation in any form is radiation. The factors are how much, for how long and how close? All medical forms of radiation are carefully regulated. Technicians using radiation for diagnostic purposes protect themselves behind a metal partition or sheild. Radiation from cell towers and wireless devices should have the same precautionary warnings and use as any other form of radiation. We protect ourselves from the radiation of the sun with sun screen. Why then do people refuse to even acknowledge that cell towers hold the same kind of health effects as all the other forms of radiation do?

        • Because there are two types of radiation – ionizing and non-ionizing. The former, which includes UV rays from the sun and medical x-rays, and the latter, which includes sound waves, AM/FM radio, TV broadcast signals, and cell phones. Sources of ionizing radiation, like UV rays, are known human carcinogens, with the power to alter atoms and affect human DNA. Non-ionizing radiation sources do not hold the same risks, although they can produce heat (like a microwave).

          • non-ionizing radiation is still radiation and when exposed to it over a long time at a close range; ie cordless telephone bases or cell phones, the risk of DNA damage is serious.

          • Did you even read what I wrote? Non-ionizing radiation cannot alter DNA. It can only create heat. Back to science class with you!

          • jc: If what you say were true, then lightbulbs would damaging your DNA and making you get cancer. The light your eyes see with *is* radiation.

            But fortunately what you say is not true. Go back to science class.

          • you know, i’d like to know what kind of scientific background you have,  because you clearly are misinformed in regards to the human body, as well as EMF dangers.  and i urge you to get out of that bubble you and so many people are trapped in, because defending those industries, which only have financial interests, will definitely NOT protect you or your loved ones.  the only thing that will is opening your eyes to the truth of what they do not want us to know..  and not just coming to conclusions based on what those “industries” say.  especially regarding “safety concerns”!!! believe me, if i were to follow those so-called “guidelines” i would be bedridden right now.  luckily i have been blessed with a brilliant woman who truly saved my life with simply removing certain non-ionizing radiation and protecting myself with certain sheildings.  i didnt believe or understand until a few months back when i purchased particular radio frequency meters that clearly explained why i spent 2 years on the floor of my home because of how sick i became and why ceratin areas i felt incredible (the areas that show to be of no concern).  what books have you read on this topic?  today doctors and many scientists view the body as a mechanical machine instead of an energetic entity.  how else does our heart perfectly beat over and over for 60, 80, 100 years?  how do our body’s cells know to regenerate its wounds and injuries? what tells the cells, during conception, to form into an arm, or a heart or a lung, etc.?  how do you explain the navigational instincts of birds?  you cannot explain these things without looking at the energetic model of the body.  the Earth’s magnetic poles keep our bodies, brains, bones, endocrine systems, etc. all working correctly with a DC current of 10 Hz.  All animals as well as humans are hooked up to the earth electromagnetically through is DC system.  mankind has changed this with all the electromagnetic fields man has created.  please do thorough research of the side you are attacking before you jump all over it as if you have been given all the necessary “proof”.

        • I meant the connection to vaccines. When you say “all medical forms of radiation are carefully regulated” how are you sure of that? Because they say so? Again you sound like someone who believes whatever they are told by men in white coats. Get over it and start taking responsibility for your own health and well-being. Men in white coats don’t care about you. And when you say “Technicians..protect themselves behind a metal partition or shield” could you somehow draw a parallel to aluminum foil guarding against radiation like a tinfoil hat? At the risk of being mocked by those who don’t know what they are talking about, tinfoil in heavy guage does actually block most radiofrequency radiation. Look it up. And lastly when you say” We protect ourselves from radiation of the sun with sunscreen” I have to say that we could not survive without the sun and I bathe myself in sun during off-peak times. Those that use sunscreen are preventing themselves from receiving the sun’s rays and subsequently are mot making essential vitamin D and again, believ whatever men in white coats tell them. I never wear sunscreen and hardly ever get sick.

          • If you get a sunburn and burn off the protective layer of skin then you make yourself open to skin cancer. To protect yourself from sunburn especially when it is early in the summer season one would use sunscreen to give you extra help in holding back the ultraviolet rays. This is the same principle as sunglasses. I take responsibility for my health by doing so. As for the statement that I sound like someone who believes whatever they are told …gee ,that’s really condescending!

          •  actually most sun screens are toxic. best protection is hat and long sleeves. seeing you are such a brilliant researcher i am sure you will find the rise in skin cancers is most likely a more resent phenomena.

            chemicals such as supermarket and non-organic or unsafe products used in skin care ingredients, as well as toxic oils that get excreted through your skin can contribute to skin cancers.

            while if you are pale, sun protection through hats and clothing is best during peak sun times, there is also connections with lack of anti oxidants  and sunburning as there is a link between lack of zinc and inability to tan.

            sensible sun exposure is important for production of it D. I do not think Sabine said she fries herself in the mid day sun till she burns. It is also important to not use soap when trying to produce ones own vit D, as this an interfere with the bodies oils and synthesis of vit D.

            and JC you do sound well educated…but it also sounds like you are most likely to follow the official line. i believe that is a worry…for you.

            These topics take a long time to research. For example the “DR” that now head the anti-fluoridation network spent 12 yrs researching the topic before he concluded that the fluoridation of our water was downright dangerous and unsafe. I use this as an example for people as it helps us conceptualize how long it might actually know just one small facet of one health claim of many to know a truth.

            this is a link- this is 3 yrs into his research, written in 2000, it is now 2012. you may also pursue the website, as i had previously found better material then this. i some how feel that if you truly dedicate yourself to thorough research the truth will lie somewhere more in the middle than you think in these debates. 


      • Yes, Sabine, you do have proof hat he snow is falling. If somebody says so, you can go outside and check for yourself, make your own observations.

        We all have biases – some we know about and that we casn strive to avoid, and others that maybe unconscious. But we can compare our observations to the observations of others – if you see it snowing and feel the snow, and I see it and feel it and two more of our friends also see it and feel it snowing, then we can be be fairly sure that none of us are hallucinating and that yes, it is really snowing.

        What you describe is nihilism, pure and simple. There comes a time when so much evidence stacks up for or against something that it becomes silly to ignore that evidence.

        That is what science does – scientists check each other’s data and results to see if they can find mistakes and flaws in each others research methods and to see if they get the same results. And they do that over and over and over again to nmake sure that the results are accurate.

        And after 20 years of research (which you can look up yourself with Google Scholar or PubMed) the evidence is firmly *against* electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

        The people who claim to suffer from it get their supposed symptoms even when a fake, non-transmitting device has be “turned on” in the same room.

        Or take a wifi device like you might use at home and cover up the tell-tale LEDs so you can’t tell whether it is on or off. Have a person in a different room who cannot see or be seen by the subject and researcher control the on/off status of the wifi device by flipping a coin ever 5 minutes. With synchronized watches, the researchg writes down for each 5 minute period whether person claiming to have EHS says they feel their usual symptoms.

        If EHS is real, when the person says yes will correlate strongly with the actual on/off status of the gateway. If EHS is false, the supposedly sensitive person will do no better than random guessing.

        For 20+ years, these supposed sufferers never do any better than random guessing. What does that tell you?

    • If corperation/government said jump of a bridge you would the first to by the sounds of your programmed write up. Where is the consideration that poeple have there own say what goes in there body or should we just line up and take what ever they say moron?

      • T3j: people are entitled to their own opinions, however the facts of reality are the same for all of us. And the facts after 20+ years of research is that wifi and cellphone radiation is harmless and that these people who are supposedly sensitive to wifi and cellphone and other electronic radiations can’t even tell when such a device near them is powered on or off based on whether they feel their usual symptoms.

    • They could have referenced studies – many of them manipulated and designed to fuel the polarized debate that gets us nowhere but gives industry more time to do more harm. Just sleep with your wireless router next to your head for a couple of nights and see if it doesn’t impact your sleep, stress and energy levels, appetite, responsiveness, and/or reactions.

      Angela Hobbs author of Sleep-Powered Wellness: Better Bedrooms for Turbocharged Sleep

      • Perhaps in your world, where anecdotal evidence trumps systematic reviews of multiple sources of evidence by highly qualified public health authorities, such an experiment would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, my view of the universe does not rest on personal observations based on a data set of 1.

      • I tried it and one night’s enough for me! Ever the sceptic I wanted to know what the fuss was about. I’ve been the meanest, most exhausted creature all day. 

  2. I would just like to add that in addition to protecting against radio waves, the undershirt woven with silver also offers great protection against vampires.

    • No, silly; it protects against werewolves! Of course, if you were to rub garlic over it, you’d have double the defence. Then your only worries would be zombies, witches, goblins…

      • Well, when someone you love gets sick it won’t be so funny anymore.

        • Talk to CaptainAwesomer; he’s the one who brought up vampires (and mixed up his myths).

          But really – a sense of humour can help you get through a lot of rough times; maybe you should try it.

          • Yah, perhaps intelligent humour with a touch of sensitivity of which this thread is not. I’m going to guess you are around 12 based on the type of humour you respond to :)

    • just showing the depth of your lack of compassion toward your fellow mankind.  where is YOUR research?

      • True Blood seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

    • so when my RF meter that reads from 2,000 all the way to 48,000 microwatts/m2 in my livingroom (which anything above 1000 is considered in the “extreme concern” category), when covered with the silver shielding fabric i have, which brings it down to 0.3 microwatts/m2, seriously must be in my head is what you are saying?   if you’ve gone through what i have this past year with illness, and discovered how things truly work you would be singing a different tune.  you, like so many people, base their opinions are pre-conceived notions that have been imbedded into us for far too long.  your ignorance and judgement on something you know nothing about will sooner or later get you into trouble.  i’ve already seen first-hand, hundreds of people suffering tremendously from these man-made technologies, and when removed from the sources, begin to regain their health.  in the beginning i was also skeptical, just as you and many others are, because i was completey misinformed, so for anyone to say that it is a placebo affect… meters do not lie!! :) 

      • Oh no I believe you, and most of the others who have done a lot to escape the radio waves.

        My original comment was a joke for anyone who watches the TV show True Blood, where the vampires in it have a vulnerability to silver, they get burnt when they touch it, so it’s used as a weapon against them.

        Your illness doesn’t get believed at first because it only affects such a small percentage of people, and then when the story does finally make it into a national magazine it’s told by a naturopathic “doctor”. So she automatically has zero credibility on this issue or anything else. But I’ll give her a call if I ever need some expert advice on the best bowel cleanse to do to rid my body of all the imaginary toxins it’s built up, or to get her opinion of the best brand of organic free range vegetables to get.

        But after looking into this some more on my own, I’ve come to believe the sickness is real, but only affects a very small percentage of people who seem to have a higher sensitivity to the radio waves. Sort of like the people who get headaches because they’re sensitive to the pressure changes caused by a storm, except even rarer than them.

  3. It would be really interesting if all the people who moved would take part in a quick week long experiment where a wireless router or cell phone is placed in their home. That would prove whether it really was the radio waves causing the illness, or something else in the environment of their old homes (like the air, or mold, or lead paint).

    • You’d need to do a double-blind study wherein some were actually working and some just had a pilot light. But how would one fake a working unit if they overcame their fears and tried to us one of the dummy modules?

      • Tell the testers the router is password protected, and not hooked up to the internet, and they won’t try to use it.

    • Before I was aware I was electromagnetic hypersensitive in effect I did  within 2 weeks I developed a serious skin irritation, fortunately I realised that the only significant change in my life was a wifi router and a laptop – literally within 2 days the irritation started to disappear.

      • Interesting, did you try using the laptop without the router?
        And how do you escape wireless routers? Everywhere I go I’m within range of 3-15 networks, even in my basement I get my neighbors signals.

        • If you read my post you would know that I stopped using the router and the laptop. 
          I  can see no wifi networks from my home but then now that I know the cause of the problem I make a point of avoiding wif equipped areas when ever possible.
          Maybe if you left the city you would find there is a whole world out there that not only exists but has existed for thousands of years with virtually no emf. especially no cell phones ipads etc.

          • Interesting, at first I thought people complaining about EMF exposure were the same types trying to ban flouride, vaccines, and windmills. This Macleans story with the “naturopathic doctor” didn’t help either.

            But after doing some googling, you just might be one of the unlucky 1 in 10,000 or so people who actually are super sensitive to EMF.

            btw, I’d move out to the country or to a cottage if there was a programming job out there.

          • In Sweden 0,4% of the population are seriously sensitive to EMR. That is official numbers. Sensitive in general are 3,2%.

            It is a real problem. Have read that now you can be tested for it, special proteins are produced in the brain of these people when exposed.

            The numbers are rising – not surprising, because the ever incresing exposure to this radiation.

        • There is special paint that electrosensitive people can use to paint their fences and the interior of their homes but it is expensive, of course. I know in Germany the government pays for the paint because it is necessary for a minimum quality of life for these unfortunate people but here in Canada – I doubt it.

      • Correlation =/= causality.

        • Does it really matter?

  4. Should we trust science, or anecdotal evidence? 
    It’s interesting that Macleans seems to give equal space to both. Crappy journalism.

    • What’s wrong with both? That makes for a balanced viewpoint. However, I would rather put my trust in what someone says that has no connection to or nothing to gain from an outcome like a neighbour than someone or something who will specifically gain from that outcome and in fact relies on that outcome for its very survival like a pharmaceutical company. We know what the survival mentality can do, it can make one go down in a hail of bullets trying to convince someone of something as their life-line depends on it. My friend or neighbour has nothing to gain by swaying me one way or another but BigPharma certainly does and they do.

      • So, you’re saying is that all research done by a profit-making company can’t be believed? That’s a pretty extreme viewpoint.

        • Take it with a grain of sea salt and look for other research by third parties before making up your mind about anything. Since industry are not forced to publish all of their findings it means the chances for the whole truth being revealed are severly lessened. It’s not a balanced view, a half truth if that. How can anyone make an informed decision about anything when they don’t have all the facts? Again, you are putting your trust and health in only part of the story and that is not good enough for me.

          • The main problem with “other research” is there is no way to verify most of it, so it’s hard to pull apart actual, useful datta from guys trying to sell me vitamins.

            But again, you’re intimating that the research can’t be trusted bassed on the corporate connection. You need to provide better evidence of this being the case than just saying “chances for the whole truth being revealed are severly lessened.”

            Otherwise, you’re still saying that funded research can’t be trusted.

          • Right, take at look at the following from Harvard Health Policy Review:
            Canada , for example, most of the national funding agencies explicitly
            encourage collaborations with industry. Even the Canadian
            of Health Research (CIHR), the primary public funding agency for
            biomedical work, has embraced this trend. In fact, the
            legislation that created the CIHR has declared “commercialization of
            health research” and “economic development through health
            to be central goals of the agency… As a result, many of the relevant
            players are acting as expected and as market forces
            would dictate.”
            – Profit and the Production of the Knowledge: The Impact of Industry on Representations of Research Results
            Harvard Health Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007
            demonstrates that academic biotechnology research has become
            increasingly commercial in the last twenty years in Canada and
            the US . This obvious realization does not only carry negative
            implications. Private funds have helped American universities remain
            the cutting edge of scientific research and provide the best learning
            environment for their students. However, it would seem that
            increasing emphasis on research commercialization has also created
            situations where university teachers and researchers could now
            themselves in conflict between their traditional academic duties and
            the new commercial imperatives. This situation is especially
            in that it could lead researchers to delay the communication of
            important findings over substantial periods of time in order
            to protect commercial interests.
            In our article, we first demonstrated the existence of a significant correlation between commercialization and withholding of
            information in the biotechnology research field in Canada and in the US . We then set out to find where and how, in the
            chain, the free dissemination of information was put in jeopardy. We
            conclude that policy changes may be required to
            improve the free flow of information.”
            – Impact of the Commercialization of Biotechnology Research on the Communication of Research Results: North American Perspective
            Harvard Health Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007

          • “You need to provide better evidence…” actually, I don’t. I don’t usurp my common sense with a system that frequently changes its mind – you do.

    • …or crappy thinking! Trusting science is fine if we know who designs the research grants, reports and who analyses the data and then who writes the extracts and for whom. Then add in the question of  who in the media is assigned to the “medical beat” – a not so appreciated entry job for journalism, but where many stumble due to lack of background education… The above usually always shows where the money is.
      When you follow the money you find highly “scientific findings” from the soy lobby… funding a scientists son’s journey through Harvard or great explanations as to why we should have our vitamin C limited to 15 mg caps… and many of us don’t believe that “science” either.
      EMF’s can be measured very simply with little meters under $100. Each of us could be vigilant, so easily. That’s hard proof for the science oriented amongst us.

  5. Bravo to Macleans! I am sure that Ted Rogers is rolling over in his grave! It gives me hope that the media still has a responsibility to report the truth.  I am sure that there are a lot of people out there wondering why they are feeling so “off” when they are around wireless products. This is a timely article with Steve Jobs passing due to cancer – as the WHO looks deeper into the proof that is emerging….

  6. Health Canada, meanwhile, maintains electromagnetic frequency does not pose a threat?
    That of course would explain why Health Canada recently issued guidelines on how to reduce one’s exposure to cell phone radiation.
    It would also explain why the military has investigated and developed non-lethal force weapons based on microwave technology

    • In fact, it wasn’t merely guidelines on “how” to reduce one’s exposure to the radiation — Health Canada went further than that. In their recent announcement, Health Canada advised all consumers TO reduce one’s exposure by following the how-to’s.

  7. Alaska Supreme Court / RF Radiation Injury / Brain Injury Association of Alaska
    November 16, 1998 Electromagnetic Radiation Overexposure 
    Hear No RF Evil – See No RF Evil
    Orchitt sought treatment at the Brain Injury Association of Alaska. His care provider there issued an opinion stating that he was suffering from a cognitive disorder due to his RF radiation exposure. She provided him with ongoing rehabilitation therapy to address his continuing complaints of mental slowing and mood changes. She also referred him to Dr. Daniel Amen, psychiatrist, who performed a SPECT scan with measures blood flow in the brain to identify functional changes. Dr. Amen concluded that Orchitt had some decreased brain activity as well as depression, and given the history, attributed these neurological impairments to Orchitt’s RF radiation exposure.
    AT&T worker John Orchitt
    Dr. Daniel Amen, psychiatrist
    Dr. Marvin Ziskin, professor of radiology and medical physics at Temple University
    International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES).
    Brain Injury Association of Alaska
    Dr. Arthur Guy, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at the University of Washington
    Alaska Brain Injury Network, Inc.
    3745 Community Park Loop,
    Suite 140 
    Anchorage, AK 99508    
    Posted by: Gerry Duffett
    3358-A McCowan Rd
    Scarborough Ontario
    Canada M1V 5P5 duffett52@yahoo.com,
    gerryduffett@fastmail.ca, http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=1http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=2http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=3

  8. Concerning this issue, little joke, because although unknown and not interested in serious economic harm that would, it is a problem capable of silent pandemic, smell, and some do not notice if they feel it but most do not, and if you are young, and those at 100% or you flinch, but insomnia, irritability, general cansamiento, lack of concentration is a sign that wireless radiation affect you, especially wifi, and wireless telephony, but as the effect does not bind cause, go to the doctor and pills and some other treatment, but if you withdraw or change these parameters significantly improved, making the test, and you’re;but the whole time to time, which radiate mania is interesting that the optical fiber or the PLC, but come on wifi, and wifi, no wonder you want to prohibit the EEC for its great doubt about the safety of wireless andThe caution is that we started it would take serious action against the wifi since May 31, 2011, WHO / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B ), based on an increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1 associated with wireless phone use. This is a consequence of the classification of electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency in 2002 by WHO / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) based on a link between leukemia Child and power lines. These determinations will change the debate of whether artificial electromagnetic fields are safe, “and yesterday published the new study comes from Ukraine this time there is a real link between radio waves and cancer more informationhttp://www.gigahertz.es/estudios__de…alambrica.htmlhttp://www.gigahertz.es/como_utiliza…ono_movil.htmlhttp://www.gigahertz.es/estudios_de_…icas_wifi.htmlHave I forgot to give you a few tips on electromagnetic pollution:
    1-If you use a desktop computer have to have the fact that the screen must be removed as the depth of three keyboards placed one after another,
    2 – Do not use wireless mice and keyboards or less Bluetooth headset, as it generates in the medium term persistent pain and migraines.
    3 – Returning to the best of TFT screen, and if you lower the brightness of LED is burned pretty sight, if they are not regulated brightness, extended to other monitors.
    4 – if using a SAID (battery backup if the power goes out) away from the person as 1.5 meters and has a large magnetic field.
    5 – The CPU can not be on the side of the legs is always there to save costs because the supplied cable is short, buy a longer cable and away from the legs the same distance as the SAID.
    6 – and finally the computer’s wifi here in Spain have disappeared without a wifi router, all wireless now, but still can go for cable, call the company to de-configure it, if you ask too say head hurts, curiously they no longer ask questions, but if they get critical, it is easy any computer, or on the router page tells you how to do it, plus online forums, because if it does not suffer progressive insomnia and headaches, but others se’ra family members and neighbors, range from 100 to 300 meters, and a radiation microv/m2 3000 and 4000.
    7 – If you play the console try not to be wireless, if you can not avoid that between shift and shift leave pending wireless controller over your hand, to avoid long-term problems.
    problems in laptops come to be the same but with the difficulty that the keyboard is above the engine and therefore the high magnetic field of 900 to 1600 nT depends on the model, it will leave a dent in the forefoot and toes, hands, stiffness , tingling,is solved with a usb keyboard (better transport Roller, well just hope these tips have been useful, or at least think about the problems that may cause, and think that electromagnetic pollution is only an economic problem, but as there much to invest is obvious, and is no longer viable.

  9. I know of what the lady and her children are suffering as I had to move from my home in Harrison Hot Springs back in 1996 for the same reasons,Headaches,hearing loss,fatigue,STRESS,body pain,sleep disturbance.Yes this is real and it is passed the time that our governments start to realize the suffering that they are allowing.Any other poison would be removed from the store shelves!



  10. Wake up folks. Industry interests have taken over Health Canada and our Government. Shipping a known carcinogen like Asbestos is proof enough. The Safety Code 6 is widely recognized as totally outdated and inadequate. W.H.O. has just moved microwave radiation exposure to CLASS 2b potential carcinogen category i.e. it is NOT safe. Thousands of peer reviewed studies on the negative short and long term effects of microwave exposure exist. Check out all the information gathered onto the web sites regarding this topic including http://citizensforsafetechnology.org

    • Health Canada is against asbestos. The politicians of several stripes have kept the shameful export alive. And no, Safety Code 6 is considered outdated only by the EMF scaremongers. It is roughly the same standard used almost everywhere in the developed world, including the EU (upheld several times by scientific panels), Japan, Australia, and the US. And the “thousands of studies” that show negative effects turn out to be early stage studies (like in-vitro) and inconclusive when considering the thousands that do not, hence the reason panels like that of the EU SCENIHR (a report surprisingly accessible to/understandable by the general public, at http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/index.htm ).

  11. to dirtyoldtown, captain awesome and keithbram —
    Do you work for Motorola?  I bet you work in the communications industry.  If you are intelligent enough to read this article then you are intelligent enough to do a little research before making ridiculous comments like that.  It only takes minutes to pull up lots of credible research.  In fact,
    the WHO recently classified RadioFrequency Electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B Carcinogen, Lyons, France, May 31, 2011.
    Wake up people!!!! Follow the money source!!!!  

    • Yes. It’s all a huge conspiracy. Would you like your tinfoil hat now, or later? Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the WHO also classifies coffee and pickled vegetables under Group 2B. I look forward to visiting your anti-pickle industry blog.

      • the fact that you can only resort to rude comments instead of citing references where it is proved safe, just proves what i said!  

        • I’m rude? But it’s perfectly ok to imply that I am a) stupid or b) work for the wireless industry because I disagree with you? Interesting. Sorry, I have no interest in reading citations from Google University.

    • Yes. It’s all a huge conspiracy. Would you like your tinfoil hat now, or later? Incidentally, it may interest you to know that the WHO also classifies coffee and pickled vegetables under Group 2 B. I look forward to visiting your anti-pickle industry blog.

  12. I’m an average guy just over 50. Used cell phones since mid 80’s and all the wireless technologies as soon as it came out. A few years ago, I got Wi-Fi in my office. Had no idea why I got headaches that just about split my skull every day, had vertigo, couldn’t eat steaks any more due to constant nausea, exhausted and foggy brain all day long, but couldn’t sleep at night, and then my heart started to go crazy. Ended up in hospital with heart attack symptoms – but apparently nothing wrong with my heart and diagnosed with unidentified electrical problem causing heart issues. Changed to hard wired computer for security reasons and got rid of wi-fi. Health problems solved. No heart problems or vision or headaches or vertigo as long as I don’t spend long in the wireless crap and keep the house free of all wireless devices – that means no cell phone, no cordless phone, no wireless anything, including microwave. So if I am a guy at 200lbs and this microwave radiofrequency makes me that ill, what the hell is it doing to little kids?
    My kids aren’t young any more, but if they were, I would run with them as well, just like this lady did. Good for her – she has protected her kids and knows what is making them sick. How many kids have headaches and can’t sleep, dizzy, heart problems, god knows what else. I don’t care what the goons at Health (Death) Canada say, they are just paid by industry anyway, the people don’t pay their wage. Nobody can tell me this stuff is safe, because it’s not.

  13. I feel sorry for the people who are effected by this harmful and unnecessary technology. I feel sorry that fellow citizens who read these articles easily make fum of the issue. I wonder how they would feel if it was them sufferring? What happenned to humanity, trust, sympathy?
    For fact many people and children are getting sick or will get sick as the big corporations are making more money.  It was always about money and power not technology.
    I believe these people and I personally know others who are suffering.
    There is absolutely no doubt that our bodies are absorbing the radiation emitted by any wire-less technology. As a human being we should have a right to control this.
    Children in schools are at risk and are being exposed everyday. Just look around the world and see what European countries are doing to protect their citizens. Why is Canada 10 years behind!!!!

  14. Have a look at what the US Military has to say – they have been doing testing on biological effects of microwave radiofrequency for years – here is an unclassified report from 1998 – lists all the same health problems that people are describing – so who doesn’t want us to know this crap is killing us and our kids? Follow the money. Moneysense magazine just reported that if cellular is a health disaster, it could cause global economic collapse. Last thing the wireless industry and governments in bed with them want us to know is that the dangers are real. Time for the 99% to stand up on this issue as well. Don’t forget most insurance agencies stopped covering personal health liablity for wireless providers back in 2000.


  15. “Smart” meters emit radiation greater than high power cell antennas that have barriers to prevent proximity of humans. Here’s proof:


    People like those in this story are the canaries in the coal mine. What affects them now will affect all of us eventually, even the disbelievers commenting on this story. To those that ask: “should we trust science or anecdotal evidence?” I would answer: don’t trust science that is paid for by parties that have a huge monetary interest in the “right” results that further their interests.

    Electromagnetic radiation is the tobacco of the 21st century. For decades, powerful interests were able to bury the evidence of harm as millions died of cancer. This is your and my future with increasing exposure to harmful microwave radiation from “smart” meters, wifi, and cell phones. It takes decades for smoking to give you cancer. Does that make it an imaginary, psychological problem?

    Humans are now living in an environment where electromagnetic radiation in the microwave band is at an energy density very many orders of magnitude higher than what humans evolved to tolerate. Most harmful is when the radiation is pulsed, since there is no ability for the body to become accustomed to the sudden increases. A moratorium should be placed on all devices with microwave emissions and wired solutions should be used wherever possible.

  16. This is a generational pandemic. Governments are run by big corporations (in this case, telecom and wireless industries) and their lobbyists. Government’s priority is not safety, it’s revenue. That’s why Asbestos is still defended as being safe by our Canadian government. The classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Type 2B Possible Carcinogens to Humans was voted with near-unanimous 28-2 in IARC’s expert panel. If they didn’t think there’s a risk and didn’t want to warn people, they would have classified RF/EMF as Type 4 (Probably not Carcinogens). Wake up, people, lot of scientific studies have shown biological effects on human bodies by non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing doesn’t mean no-harm. It causes harm slowly after cumulative exposure overtime. http://www.safeinschool.org/p/scientific-studies.html Children have a longer period of life-long exposure to all the different frequencies we’ve put into our environment. We need to protect them. http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/02/world-health-organization.html

    • “Governments are run by big corporations (in this case, telecom and wireless industries) and their lobbyists.” There are billions of dollars in profit made by corporations in wired communications technologies too. I think they are pulling the strings behind this Wifi scaremongering campaign. Both are ludicrous conspiracy theories.

  17. All you skeptics and naysayers need to wlk a mile in the shoes of those affected by EMF!! In this case the only virus comes from the fact that the government is going ahead with the implementation of wifi connectivity knowing full well that many people are sensitive to EMF and many more will become so. So did all you red necks get vaccinanted? Or did it scare you off? Did you do any research into the Vaccination threat or did you just go along your merry way – Oh well, it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care!!

    The EMF sensitivity is real, people. Get your head out of the sand for once and do some real investigation into the problem.

    By the way, just so ya know, the smart meter data can is not only a wifi device. It can transmit data over fibre optic cable, telephone cable and believe ot or not, the very wires that deliver your electricty!! So why, you need to ask yourself, is Hydro going the route bof wifi? Als note this. Italy has smart meters but they are hard wired not wifi. The Netherlands has banned them. The state of Utah has restricted them.

    So guys, do your due diligence and then after you understand the problem, and only then, will you be able to make intelligent comments.

  18. My cousin in England suffers from EHS and there are growing numbers of people who suffer the same symptoms as the people in this article.  For further information on ES, visit http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org which provides valuable information on the topic.

  19. Wake up, people, before it’s too late! Do your research, look at the evidence, talk to a (naturopathic) doctor – or maybe the US Military – and read the stories of those affected by EMFs. How much radiation will be too much? At what point is a child’s sensitive system on overload? Do not rely on the government, Health Canada or the WHO for the truth. Try something different: Follow the mon

  20. I’m an IT company owner who became electrosensitve a few years ago. I wish this were not true as I found it convenient to be able to use my laptop wirelessly from anywhere in my home or at my clients.

    I have a deep understanding of the technology as well as what is going on at a cellular level and am advocating for the removal of Wi-Fi from all schools.

    Ms Boutet has done the only thing she can for her child – move away to an area that has minimal electromagnetic radiation. I visited the area she has moved to for four days at the beginning of the summer and felt better than I have in four years.

    • Perhaps you would consider reading articles on confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence and you will understand the conceptual flaws in the arguments you are making.

      • Perhaps you, Art (JB), should start reading some scientific articles rather than going to the “Junk Science” website for your research.

        • Rose, I am not sure to what “JB” refers? As for reading studies, I do. There is great monthly compendium of research in the field at the University of Ottawa – McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment – RFCom web site (See http://www.rfcom.ca/new/index.shtml ). Looks like the last entry is April?May this year, so perhaps they are still trying to get into the swing of things after the summer break, but it is a great resource. And your comments are a non sequitur: you have not addressed the points I make about confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence. Do you understand what they mean and how they make the credibility of EMRAware’s comments suspect as scientific evidence?

  21. Our rights and freedoms are being removed….they have put GMO’s on us…no labeling of our food….now with the smart meter we’re not given a choice…it is going in regardless of how anyone feels…it will burn our our appliances…..then we are left with the bill….where is our democracy?   Where are our rights?

  22. I really don’t understand this.

    The Sun is firing off massive amounts of electromagnetism at almost every frequency (as are pulsars, supernova remnants, the galactic center, and the cosmic microwave background), and at far greater intensity than a router or cell phone. If they’re affected by a routers and radio towers, then the sky should be an issue too.

    Perhaps there’s another problem in their environment, and they’re misdiagnosing it as radio frequencies. Or perhaps the problem is psychosomatic, and putting away the laptop and cell phone has a placebo effect.

    • FancyLad,
      Yes, you are right.  The sun gives off enormous amounts of deadly radiation.  BUT, the earth’s natural magnetosphere shields the earth from these rays by diverting them around the earth.  And yes, spaceflights sometimes do occur beyond this shield, but they must be short in duration and times to occur during periods of quiet solar cycle. 
      And as for people who say that garage door openers and remote controls for televisions are electromagnetic radio frequencies, they are not correct.  The signal is being transferred via light waves, not electrical pulsing waves.  The light wave transmission is safe.  The electrical pulsing waves are not. 
      I hope this helps.

      • Rose, light *is* electromagnetic radiation. Radio waves, infrared, visible light, UV rays, gamma rays – they are all different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Of those, only UV rays and gama rays are energetic enough to cause damage to the DNA, proteins and other molecules in your body.

        Also, electricity is the flow of electrons travelling from atom to atom along a conductor, such as a copper wire.

        I think you might need to review your understanding of what is or is not electromagnetism, because clearly you don’t.

  23. Business doesn’t give a damn about the Precautionary Principle. Short-term gain outweighs long-term pain if it’s merely the suffering of others.

    The comments so far show a set of mostly business-like minds, which overlap hugely with the legal mind. There, the onus is on the victims to show proof of harm or damages; otherwise business is free to do as it pleases. That system appears to work well until there is a critical mass of victims.

    However, there’s no cogent reason to wait for victims to show up or for us to use that business/legal mindset.

    By contrast, there are abundant reasons to use the Precautionary Principle as a mindset and to shift the onus of proof to business to prove, to at least the standard of probability, that no harm will occur, if for no other reason than cost-benefit analysis. Just ask yourself, What will it cost society if Boutet and St. Clair turn out to be right?

    Then think of all the parts of our society and the larger ecology that will be affected by this phenomenon. Is it worth the risk?

    Was nuclear power worth the risk? Ask people in Tokyo a few years from now.

    • “What will it cost society if Boutet and St. Clair turn out to be right?” is the wrong question. The true question is: “what are the risks, costs and benefits to society?” Foregoing wireless technologies implies foregoing the benefits of such technologies. All sides of the equation must be factored in.

      • Yes, Art (JB),
        And asbestos was a great invention for building material.  Many benefits were gained from that advancement.  And so were many health concerns.  And as for coffee and pickled vegetables being a class 2b possible carcinogen, children don’t drink coffee (at least not all day long),nor do they eat an exhorbertant amount of pickled vegetables. 

        • Comparing proven carcinogens and possible carcinogens is a logical fallacy (X and Y were part of group A; X was later found to be in group B; therefore Y must be part of Group B): each case must be examined on its own. PS Still not sure to what “JB” refers.

  24. We could all benefit from these canaries in the mind. I am fortunate enough not to suffer from these sensitivities, but living as I do close to multiple towers I’m sure my body is suffering. For those who are honestly doubting, not the many who make fun of others because they work for the industry, please look at the research that’s been available for decades. the military used radiofrequency as weaponry during the cold war. And the is the same radiofrequency that is used in the gadgets we give our kids. Realize that living beings evolved to a natural radiation that is billions of times lower than the levels of manmade radiation permeating our environment. If we could see it or smell it, we would be very concerned. Because we can

  25. There was a day when trucks equipped with hoses went around to public places such as swimming pools and sprayed people with DDT.  That was considered safe.  So was thalidomide and, recently, Celebrex, to name just a few of the harmful drugs approved by regulatory bodies – until they weren’t.  Maybe those with recognizable symptoms from EMF exposure are the lucky ones because their bodies are giving them warning signals. Devices that emit EMF’s should not be forced on anyone and the B.C. government’s determination to force Smart Meters on the public is a disgrace.  Profit does not trump health.

  26. I’m not personally EHS, but I know a number of people who are.  If one becomes sick in a wireless environment (eg. school), but feels fine at home/on weekends, then there is certainly something in the wireless environment making them sick.  Young kids would not make this stuff up.

    The non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones/towers and wifi has been shown to be harmful – there are loads of studies indicating heart irregularities, changes to the blood-brain barrier, fertility issues, and cancer. Of course, not everyone will get sick, just like not all smokers develop lung cancer.  But no one would argue that smoking isn’t harmful.  At least not anymore.  Right now, the RFR safety issue is right where the smoking issue was about 40 years ago. The first people who tried to identify smoking as a health hazard were ignored and ridiculed also.

    As for the sun’s rays, most of the harmful radiation is filtered out by the environment, so they are not a fair comparison to these pulsed, man-made sources of radiation.

    People can do what makes them comfortable in their own homes and businesses, but citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their children from insufficiently tested technology (recognized by the WHO as a possible carcinogen, btw) that is making, or may make, them sick.

  27. On doctor’s advice, my home is free of wireless devices such as cell and cordless phones, WiFi routers and other sources of electromagnetic radiation.  Neighbours on both sides have turned down their WiFi signal for me and turn it off at night.  Recently, a young couple moved in next door.  They had never heard of such a medical condition, of course, and at first refused to turn down the WiFi signal.  However, when I could tell them to the minute the exact time that they hooked up the WiFi, they were amazed.  When I said the reason I knew was that at exactly that time I felt a wave of head and chest pain, weakness and nausea, they were convinced and agreed to turn down the signal in the software. Now their WiFi reaches all areas in their house but does not send a signal strong enough for me to feel in my house.
    Electrohypersensitivity (formerly “Radio wave sickness”) is recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as an environmental sensitivity and is classified as a disability. 
     EHS is also accepted as a functional impairment in Norway and Sweden, where health care facilities with very low electromagnetic fields and radiation are in place for sensitive individuals.

    • “On doctor’s advice…” If your doctor has so advised, he or she has left the scientific medical profession.”EHS is also accepted as a functional impairment in Norway and Sweden…” That is only relevant for social benefits. It is not accepted there as a medical condition, nor further as a medical condition caused by radio waves.


        • The arguments put forward by Rose do not hold water, nor does typing them in all caps (aka shouting) give them any more weight. Rose’s doctor may be a practising professional, registered with The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and well-respected in her area. However, doctors who make diagnoses outside of recognized boundaries have still left scientific medicine behind. She  may still wish to respect him, and to retain him as her doctor; that is is her right and choice. Her doctor is free to practice medicine as he sees fit too, within the boundaries of the rules of the CPSO. The fact remains that he has chosen to be outside scientific medicine. Given the recent re-affirmation of scientific medical principles that came about after the CPSO attempted to draft a terribly misguided policy on so-called “Complimentary and Alternative Medicine”, and about which they received withering criticism from other medical and scientific bodies as well as doctors and scientists (see the post by Dr. Steven Novella at the Neurologica blog “Some Encouraging Backlash Against Nonsense” at http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/some-encouraging-backlash-against-nonsense/ ), that would seem to be a position increasingly out of favour with the College.Finally, Rose states “HE IS ACTUALLY AMONGST A GROWING GROUP OF PHYSICIANS…” There is no evidence to suggest this is true (none is provided); thus, the assertion must be considered conjecture.

  28. I do not feel well when I am in the city, but feel much better on our property where there is no WiFi or cell phones in use.  It makes total sense that we would be effected from the frequencies in the air.  Building Biology and BioInitiative.org are some places to see what scientists are saying about this kind of pollution.

  29. In May of this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer  a research wing of the World Health Organization designated wireless type radiation such as that emitted from wireless routers, cordless phones, so called smart appliances and hydro meters, and so on as a type 2B carcinogen. No matter how the corporate media and the corporately controlled health regulators try to spin this classification, the truth is we are in deep trouble globally as a result of the imposition of this technology by the elites onto an unsuspecting public.We see people out on the streets right now all around this planet demanding more control over their daily lives, demanding the democracy promised by our politicians and our bureaucracies.The Gig is up for the corporations. Now is the time for the people.

    • Do you know what else is classified as a 2B carcinogen? Coffee and pickled vegetables. Will you be avoiding those as well?

      • And do you know what else is classified as a 2B carcinogen?

        DDT, MERCURY, DICHLOROMETHANE, and LEAD. Why don’t you mix yourself a nice big cocktail of all those and enjoy!

        • Yes, drinking lead and living near low-level wireless transmissions are completely comparable. That’s a perfectly reasonable comparison, with no logical flaws at all.

      • Hey – this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t you just try sleeping with your wireless router next to your head for three nights and then turn it off for three – you’ll soon see the difference in your sleep yourself.

      • It’s not ‘pickled veggies’ that are the problem it is the distilled white vinegar that some people use to make them that is. Lacto-fermented veggies, the old and natural way to ferment with water and salt, is extremely healthy. And perhaps it’s the pesticides and all the other -cides that are used on coffee beans that make them unhealthy. Coffee is very high in antioxidents and has numerous health benefits.

        • Regardless, they’re also listed under Group 2B, and no one seems up in arms about that. Your hair dryer and all other household electronics also emit low level EMF. I am happy to see you are able to overcome your EMF sensitivity at least long enough to use a computer.

          • Yes of course ‘regardless’ DOT when it suits you. See? Counter-intuitive when presented with useful information. And you are not at all getting the fact that eating pickled veggies and drinking coffee is a choice whereas all this radiation especially smart meters is NOT. Can you see a difference?

          • The original argument was that because low level EMF is in Group 2B, it is dangerous. Your “useful information” does not remove the items from Group 2B, so the original  argument is still invalid. BTW, I’m still waiting to hear  how you have managed to you overcome your debilitating EMF sensitivity long enough to type on your computer. (Or is it powered by bicycle?).

      • “DDT, MERCURY, DICHLOROMETHANE, and LEAD” Yup, we all know how bad these are. Except that the reason we ban and/or restrict their use has nothing to do with their carcinogenic status, which is just as unproven as for EMF. We restrict DDT because it is an endocrine disruptor, mercury and lead because they are heavy metals that are neurotoxic, and dichloromethane because, when inhaled, it is converted to carbon monoxide which can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning.

        • Drat, I should’ve replied to this one. You’re right, it’s absolutely not only re cancer.

    • ” Now is the time for the people.” And for all the corporations who make billions and stand to make billions more from wired communications technologies and infrastructure. The argument does not hold water.

  30. Scientifically proven health risks from the wireless
    radiation of baby monitors, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and cell phones has existed
    for many years. Recently, there has been a noticeable momentum to the
    increasing acceptance of this science. More and more, public policy is forced
    to reflect the science rather than serve the goals of financial gain or
    convenience, in order to protect public health.


    In April 2011, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary
    Committee on the Environment studied the effects of electromagnetic fields on
    the environment and human health. A factual 12 page summary about the use of
    electromagnetic fields resulted.  It was
    unanimously adopted by 17 signatories representing 15 countries. The recommendation
    was that European governments “take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure
    to electromagnetic fields”, including banning cell phones and Wi-Fi from


    In May 2011, the World Health Organization classified radio
    frequency radiation as a Class 2b human carcinogen. This classification
    includes all wireless devices.


    In August 201, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of
    Ontario voted to study the potential health risks of Wi-Fi in schools.


    In October 2011, Health Canada issued a recommendation that
    people under 18 years of age should limit their use of cellphones.


    Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a very
    serious health condition diagnosed by medical professionals including those at
    Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. Since society’s use of wireless devices
    has become increasingly pervasive, people who suffer from EHS are,
    unfortunately for them, our canaries in the coal mine.

    • Health Canada’s recommendation to reduce usage was for ALL consumers – not solely for people under 18 years of age.

    • “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a very serious health condition diagnosed by medical professionals including those at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.” The medical professionals at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto have thereby left the scientific medical community.

      • Art Tricque, your declaration that, “The medical professionals at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto have thereby left the scientific medical community.”, is an example of how you use an artificially inflated sense of self-importance to pose as a self-determined authority. It seems this is the basis for your unfounded attacks on those who cite factual proof of health risk. You demonstrate a propensity for mud slinging in the shadow of rational presentation of facts.

      • Art, I would tread very lightly in this area if I were you.  You have just made a comment about medical professionals who are well protected under the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.  This organization does not take lightly to comments such as yours above. 

      • Replying to the comments of WhyWI and Rose…Whether you, I or anyone else thinks I, you or anyone else am/are/is self-important or wishes to ascribe any other quality positive or negative to me, you or anyone else is immaterial: it is the arguments we make that count. You may disagree about them, but therein lies the crux. I try to focus on the arguments myself, about which I am not always 100% successful, but I am trying.If you had a bleeding ulcer, and a doctor ascribed it to the gravitational influence of Pluto, and you asked that was a recognized illness backed by solid scientific medical evidence, and your doctor said no, how would you describe your doctor? Firmly part of the scientific medical community? No, you would call him or her a quack. I am more gracious in saying “departed from the scientific medical community” precisely because I am trying not to sling mud. That accusation is off-base. The medical staff at Women’s College are free to practice as they see fit within the bounds of their professional organizations; the fact remains that, if they are diagnosing symptoms as arising from an unrecognised illness and ascribing it to an unproven cause*, they have left scientific medicine.Last, the comments I have made are far within the bounds of public discourse, and in no way do they risk sanction by anyone.* If they wish to ascribe the symptoms to psychological factors and treat the condition with cognitive behavioural therapy, about which there is solid scientific medical evidence for success as a treatment, I am with them.

  31. Fact: Many governments, including our own, KNOW that there are negative biological effects created by exposure to non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal levels well below Canada’s ridiculous guidelines (which, by the way, are much higher than what is found in many other countries). Research was done by the military on such effects during the Cold War.

    Fact: Some of the scientists Health Canada relies upon to help determine which studies they should consider have been the recipients of large amounts of funding for various projects from telecommunications firms in the past. (You’re shocked, I know…)

    Fact: Health Canada prides itself on using a ‘weight of evidence approach’. Guess what? If all of the industry-funded studies were removed and decisions were to be based solely on independently-funded studies then the ‘weight’ would overwhelmingly side with scientists and doctors who are urging precaution.

    Fact: European countries are far ahead of Canada in terms of urging precaution with respect to needless EMF exposure and children. Many countries are recommending that 1) children use cellphones only for emergencies, and 2) WiFi be removed from schools in order to further protect children whose bodies are still developing.

    Fact: Latency periods can be incredibly long. Look at smoking…(I still remember those ads featuring doctors and educators and touting the brand of cigarettes they most prefer…)

    Is it so incredulous to think that the growing number of scientists and doctors around the world who are issuing warnings and urging precaution could be right?

    Pull your head out of the sand, people, and do your research. These poor children and adults who are suffering from EHS are the canaries in the coal mine.

  32. What the article failed to mention is that there is now so much evidence of biological effects from low-level microwave radiation that even the behind-the-pack WHO had to reclassify it as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen. This decision was based on their review of hundreds of scientific studies. Last year several respected international scientists testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health that Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is “outdated and inadequate to protect public health.” They were mostly ignored, although Health Canada has since issued an advisory that children limit their time on cellphones—a voluntary effort that will accomplish next to nothing. 

    • Excellent points! Kind of makes you wonder why none of the Cancer agencies are even slightly concerned with the effects of all this radiation when the WHO make this claim of which they do not take lightly. If the WHO makes a statement like that you KNOW it is a lot worse than they are telling us. Well I know why. The bread and butter for the cancer industry is well…cancer. And it ain’t gettin any better…

      • Funny, the Canadian Cancer Society in its annual report “Canadian Cancer Statistics 2011” (available as a PDF at http://www.cancer.ca/~/media/CCS/Canada%20wide/Files%20List/English%20files%20heading/PDF%20-%20Policy%20-%20Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%20-%20English/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%202011%20-%20English.ashx ) says “Increases in the number of new cancer cases are due mainly to a growing and aging population”

        • Art Tricque are you referring to The Canadian Cancer Society to PROVE your point? It is interesting that they are inclined to say cellphones don’t increase cancer risk. MILLIONS of dollars are donated and gifted to CCS by TELECOMMUNICATIONS companies. Telecommunications companies even go so far as to generously help fund their research. Why do you think telecommunications companies donate, gift, and fund cancer societies?  

          Case in point, the findings of the published scientific research of Mary McBride at the B.C. Cancer


          Here is a good example of research used to support the
          ‘weight of evidence’ approach taken by Health/Industry Canada. This is the kind
          of scientific research that determines the safety of wireless radiation from
          cellphones, Wi-Fi, cordless DECT phones, Smart Meters, and baby monitors. The
          ‘weight of evidence’ approach acknowledges that although some studies prove wireless
          is unsafe, results like Mary McBride’s outweigh them.


          I think special attention should be paid to published
          research by a scientist of Mary McBride’s stature, as well as her highly
          respected organization, the B.C. Cancer Agency.

          In particular, it should be noted that for fourteen years,
          at public lectures, symposiums, in her Curriculum Vitae publicized by the
          Canadian Cancer Society, and in hundreds of internet articles, Mary McBride
          allowed herself to be addressed as Doctor. Then, CTV News exposed Mary McBride
          as having only a Master of Science not a PhD. However, the B.C. Cancer Agency
          defended Mary McBride saying she meets the gold standard for scientific
          research. Together, Mary McBride and the B.C. Cancer Agency have provided an
          incredible amount of evidence to support the safety of wireless radiation.
          Perhaps the $1,000,000 gift to the B.C. Cancer Agency (as listed in their 2009
          Annual Report) from telecommunication company TELUS, has helped them achieve
          that gold standard in scientific research.

          • The arguments put forward by commenter WhyWI do not hold water. The use of the Canadian Cancer Society reference was to counter commenter Sabine’s argument that cancer is not getting better. In fact, cancer is getting better, adjusted for the fact that we are living much longer than before (not dying from all the other illness, primarily infectious diseases, malnutrition, war, etc.), by which time cancers have a chance to appear. Bringing evidence about the BC Cancer Agency does not contradict a report of the Canadian Cancer Society. Although, I will point out that if the argument you are trying to make is that a researcher lying about her credentials and a large donation from a telecommunications company to the BC Cancer Agency means that cell phones cause cancer, there is a large body of evidence still to provide. (Aside: how many other charities did Telus make donations to across Canada? Was it buying their silence too? Here are a few of their partnerships per their web site: http://about.telus.com/community/en/partnerships/) Unless you can show that the agency has suppressed studies at the behest of Telus, the argument offered is the conjecture of a conspiracy theory.

          • Look buddy, when every other person is going to get cancer how in the world can you say ‘cancer is getting better’ with a straight face? Just go ahead and believe what you want, get your vaccines, fill your mouth with mercury, stick you head in a microwave oven, scratch your non-stick fry pans and eat the chips and wash that all down with a nice diet coke. Enjoy. Good-bye.

          • None of the issues Sabine mentions figure in the Canadian Cancer Society’s report, or in the reports of any other major cancer organization of health organization, as a significant cause of cancer. As for sticking one’s head in a microwave oven, there is extensive scientific evidence to suggest that the heating effects of microwaves at the power levels used in microwave ovens cannot be handled by the human body. I do not recommend anyone attempt it; I certainly won’t. ;-)

        • I see you believe everything you read. That’s unfortunate for you and your family. Just use your common sense please that’s all you need to do to understand that increasing age does not equal cancer. Sigh. Back before planes, TV’s, factories that pump out toxins and all the other nasty stuff we do to ourselves via radiation (computers, etc) people rarely died of cancer. I suggest that what they mean is that the longer you live in this toxic soup the longer the period for accumulation in the tissues and thus the greater the chance for developing cancer because most of this stuff is cummulative and develops over time. Most people who start to show signs of cancer have already had it building up in them for 10 years. It all depends on how you look at it.

          • The arguments put by commenter Sabine are without merit.”I see you believe everything you read.” This is incorrect, I first read it thoroughly, and then I consider it critically. I do take information from authoritative sources (like from the Canadian Cancer Society) as more credible, but that is not a blind position, and one must always be aware. I  am not certain that Sabine has read the report. It says the increase in cancer incidence is primarily attributable to age-adjusted factors. They do not mean to say that people suffer longer in a toxic soup, hence there is more cancer incidence. They have written precisely what they mean to say. If Sabine wishes to believe it means something else, that is her prerogative, but she is factually incorrect.”Back before…people rarely died of cancer.” People did die of cancer going back to the ancient Greeks; they just died more often from war, infectious disease, pestilence, malnutrition, living conditions, etc. In large parts of the world, those matters have been resolved. Cancer is one we are still trying to solve. That there was some golden past is logical fallacy and a myth.

  33. “Una St. Clair, director of Citizens for Safe Technology, isn’t convinced. She has been scouring the B.C. Interior for areas “free from all this poison in the air.” ”  What nonsense! Too bad for Una that that has been impossible for eternity because of natural microwave sources, and since the early 1960s because of the microwave transmissions from communications satellites — Telstar was the first, and over Canada since 1972 the Canadian Anik satellites — and because of global navigation satellites, like those of the US Transit system (from the 1960s) and the newer US GPS system from the late 1970s. Oh, let’s not forget the Russian GLONASS navigation system from the 1980s, and the Europeans and Chinese are building global navigation systems transmitting in the microwave range too. It is easy to spout nonsense based on fear and ignorance; using facts seems to be another matter for Ms. St. Clair…

    • If you contact Ms. St. Clair yourself – there is contact information on the Citizens for Safe Technology website (I would provide the link but I’m not sure of the rules here) – you will find that she is well aware of natural microwave sources and all the factual science regarding the interaction between various sources of microwave radiation and biological cells (human, flora, and other fauna).

    • Since you are so uninformed, maybe you would like to listen to San Francisco Tesla Society consulting engineer Rob States (MIT grad with lot of experience in both microwave and electrical fields) explain to you the harm from microwave and EMF. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLeCTaSG2-U And if you’re not convinced? No worries, enjoy bathing in your wireless frequencies and I’m sure your body will catch up with your lack of knowledge and teach you what “suffering” means. Ms. Boutet is taking a brave and sacrificial step for her child’s wellbeing. And Ms. St. Clair is doing wonderful work for many people in a selfless way. Shame on you for slandering about her.

      • Nice to cherry-pick and ignore the point: everyone on this planet has already been “bathing” — to use your terminology — for decades from man-made sources. Not only from the satellites I mentioned but also from microwave telephone and data links starting in the 1950s; police, fire, ambulance and private wide-area two-way radio systems starting in the 1960s; television broadcast starting in the 1960s and 1970s; paging networks starting in the 1960s; police, fire, ambulance and private wide-area networked two-way radio systems starting in the 1980s; still more paging networks in the 1990s; cellphone networks starting in the 1980s; the Clearnet (now Telus) Mike network in the 1990s, the PCS mobile phone providers (like Clearnet and Fido) starting in the 1990s, and on and on. Those who have “bathed” include commenters Freelance_Human and Concerned Parents and everyone else. Cancers most often cited have not gone haywire and our health has continued to improve over the period (and I am in rude health, thanks). To argue that someone should be trusted on a topic because he is an engineer from MIT and a member of the Tesla Society is a logical fallacy of argument from authority (Linus Pauling won the Nobel prize in chemistry, yet thought vitamin C was a miracle cure, about which he was stone-cold wrong). Mr. States’ arguments on their own are just as fallacious.Finally, both Ms. Boutet and Ms. St Clair are perhaps well-meaning. However, I call a member of the general public taking unnecessary action for whatever reason misguided, and someone representing an advocacy organization like Ms. St. Clair egging on people like Ms. Boutet wilfully ignorant of science.

        • Art (JB), you are right.  We have been bathed in this electromagnetic radiation for years.  HOWEVER, THE VOLUME OF EXPOSURE HAS DRASTICALLY INCREASED in recent years.  And, school-aged children used to be able to go to a school and be free from this exposure because the BRICK WALLS USED IN SCHOOLS WOULD FILTER OUT EXTERIOR SIGNALS.  So, children got a break from this EMF for 6-7 hours per day.  Now, the children are being exposed at a very high level ALL DAY LONG.  And now with the 4G networks up and running, those antenna emit a much stronger signal than ever before.  So, please consider BOTH INTENSITY AND DURATION.  That is the difference between 1950 and 2011.

          • The statement that schools blocked out radiation previously is factually incorrect: unless a school — and also importantly a home, where kids spend even more of their day — is a Faraday cage (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage ), which does attenuate or block much electromagnetic radiation, kids and everyone else in society have been exposed to microwaves all day long for decades. And the argument that the volume (perhaps she means field strength?) has gone up is not supported by any evidence (obviously, it has gone up from the very start, but not in recent decades); she certainly does not supply any. Last, even with the trivial energies of Wifi and smartmeters, average levels are on the order of a thousand to ten thousand times below safety levels (see “Evaluation of Electromagnetic Field Intensity in the City of Toronto” at http://consumer.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/cotr.pdf/$FILE/cotr.pdf, study by Industry Canada, admittedly from 2002, but typical; studies have been carried out in the UK, France, Germany by radiation protection and/or health authorities with similar results).

          • Actually, Art, I have measured levels inside schools.  And they are zero (unless you stand by the front door). 
            Do you have an ulcer yet?  You seem to be jumping on everyone here.  Okay, you are right.  You are the only normal, sane person on this site and everyone else are quacks. 

          • Rose: “I have measured levels inside schools.  And they are zero” Rose provides no evidence for her assertion. I am certain that in the vast majority of schools within the coverage of a mobile phone provider, one can make and receive calls and text messages. That means some signal is reaching the mobile phone units. Ergo, there is radiation. And that would leave out all the other sources in urban areas, like public safety communications radio, paging systems, etc.”Do you have an ulcer yet?” No. This comment does not address any of the arguments I have made.”You seem to be jumping on everyone here.” This also does not address any argument I ahve made. If one calls me trying to address the arguments people made, not engaging in ad hominem attacks, providing some references for statements, and not using impolite language “jumping on people”, then I guess I am guilty.”Okay, you are right.  You are the only normal, sane person on this site and everyone else are quacks.” Once again (and I will use the same words as before), it is irrelevant as to whether whether you, I or anyone else thinks I, you or anyone else am/are/is normal/sane/a quack or wishes to ascribe any other quality positive or negative to me, you or anyone else: it is the arguments we make that count. You may disagree about them, but therein lies the crux.

  34. To Dirtyoldtown: you are such a typical school bully…making fun of others makes you feel better.  And of course smoking and second hand smoke for you is good too…?  right?  And where will YOU be when they prove it….not talking too much then, eh big talker?

    • The evidence about the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke is clear. There is no credible evidence that EMF sensitivity is caused by wireless technology. If pointing that out makes me a bully, then I guess I’m a bully. Do I get a special button or bully membership discount card?

      • Hey why don’t you take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO0AnNHz8vI At “5:00” mark you will see Philip Morris CEO talking on national TV in 1971, explaining to people how harmless cigarettes are.

        • Except that it’s not the wireless industry that is telling us there’s no evidence that low level EMF causes harm. It’s our public health officials. So unless you believe the scientists at Health Canada are in the pocket of the wireless industry, in which case, there is simply no point arguing with you, that is not a valid comparison.

  35. I remember driving in rural Yukon and having no radio reception for many hours.  And in Whitehorse?  Two or three radio and TV stations – unless one had cable, which provided half dozen more.  How long ago?  Only 25 years.  Why does one need to relocate to be safe, nowadays?

  36. Ms. Sanford says she feels better in Crystal Beach. Strange, it took me only a few minutes using an internet map (for coordinates) and the Industry Canada database of transmitter locations (at http://sd.ic.gc.ca/pls/engdoc_anon/web_search.geographical_input ) to figure out that there six sites each with multiple transmitter antennas at various microwave frequencies within 5 km of Crystal Beach, almost all operated by the major wireless communications firms (Bell, Telus, Rogers). I am happy she feels better. I know it has nothing to do with electromagnetic waves.

    • Mr. Tricque, as with most exposures to chemical and physical agents, individual biological reactions can vary from individual to individual as well as in different circumstances and with the progression of time in the same individual. Not everyone is allergic to peanut butter; not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. For the Golden Horseshoe along Lake Ontario, 6 sites with multiple transmitter antennas within 5 km is an extremely low number of transmitter antennas. I live in the west end of Toronto – using your Industry Canada website with 5 km radius around my residence, I retrieve 1862 transmitters. Even if there are as many as, for example, 20 transmitter antennas at each site (which is a very high estimate), that would be 93 sites each with 20 transmitter antennas. Certainly Ms. Sanford – and others – are possibly not physically able to function optimally in any exposure to non-natural electromagnetic fields/waves. Whether or not I can detect 1862 waves of “extra” electromagnetic energy being absorbed by the cells in my body, there is no controversy around the scientific fact that my body – and your body – does absorb amounts of this “extra” energy. It is a long-established and accepted scientific fact that these electromagnetic waves do penetrate our bodies. The depth of penetration and the cells/body tissues/etc. breached by and absorbing this “extra” energy and having to deal with it are all consequences dependent on very many variables (such as parameters of the “extra” energy, body composition, what brain or muscle or tissue or other cells the “extra” energy happens to hit, and so on … too many variables/factors to list). These 1862 transmitters are continuously emitting 1862 “waves” of this “extra” energy into my living space, sleeping space, working space, relaxing space – that’s 24/7. Continuously. And to visualize … it’s not that each millisecond (or whatever the tiny timespan is) 1862 cells in my body are affected … it’s 1862 “extra” waves of energy every millisecond (or whatever timespan) arriving inside zillions of cells inside my body simultaneously. It’s a tough and continuous attack we’re challenging our body components and systems with — 24/7. For many people, some or many body components and systems will reach a point where no longer can they handle the constant assault, and they’ll fail in some or multiple ways. Sometimes those failures seem unnoticeable at the moment, sometimes they are noticeable as uncomfortable or debilitating symptoms, sometimes the failures are catastrophic short-term and/or long-term. It may be difficult to identify an attacker that is not detectable by our conscious senses, but that doesn’t mean there is no attacker.

      • Commenter Freelance_Human’s arguments are incorrect and betray a lack of understanding of physics. My first point was that Crystal Beach is not devoid of microwaves sources.  Second, one cannot compare an urban centre to a relatively small town setting: what the html output you read did not disclose was the power of each transmitter; those in town are typically lower, making the average field strength (which depends primarily on power and distance) between an urban centre and a small town more comparable. Third, your body does not “feel” individual waves and the field strength tied up with them: it feels the sum of the waves. The only way your cells react to the field is to absorb a trivial amount of energy as heat, which on the scale of body temperature and the systems that regulate body temperature is background noise (your cells are not electronic devices with antennas that can other process the waves). Finally, the points about a battle and how some peoples’ systems will fail is gross conjecture, not borne out by any competent chain of science (prior plausibility, in-vitro, animal models, higher animal models, small scale human testing, and wide scale testing). And systematic reviews of provocation tests show that those who think they are EMF sensitive cannot perceive EMF better than chance.

        • Excuse me, Mr. Tricque, you cannot know in what manner I used the Industry Canada website. I have been using that website for years – not because you directed me to it. I am well aware of all the options and parameters that can be requested for the search results – both in the upper section (frequencies, Tx, Rx, html, and other) as well as all the dozens of parameters that can be requested below the first search button (distance, azimuth, power, beam width, tower structure height, antenna height above ground, frequency authorization date, site licencee name, and many, many others). Sometimes I have contacted the individuals at Rogers, Telus, etc. named in the licence information only because I have found their names there at the Industry Canada search results. It is not true that a body and/or cell in the body is never being penetrated by individual waves (unless you’re explaining that of course we are constantly bombarded by non-man-made waves as well, such as the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Earth itself, the Sun, etc.). And thank you, indeed, it makes sense to explain that often a body and/or cell in the body is often penetrated by any combination of individual waves, multiple waves, and the sum of waves that combine outside the body in any environment before penetrating into the body. All this is germane – cells in our bodies must work to deal with (possibly) infinite combinations of waves penetrating, all different, some individual, some in who knows what combination [again likely infinite temporal or finite material conditions related to the physics of the wave(s), body location, body tissue/material being penetrated, general condition of immune system, who knows, maybe dependent on what you ate or drank 2 seconds ago, 10 hours ago … our bodies strive for a balance but are constantly in flux, the environment strives for balance but is constantly in flux]. And indeed my body and your body are in effect antennas because our bodies do absorb energy transmissions, and indeed energy penetrating your body takes many forms, not only heat. Mr. Tricque, I know that you are well aware of the time it takes to heat tissue with electromagnetic waves — you claim I do not know my physics, but you are pretending not to know yours … energy is neither created nor destroyed, so if sufficient time hasn’t passed to create heat, the energy is present in a form other than heat. Your time-worn presentations regarding heat, inabilities to perceive EMF in a sensory manner that we may or may not notice, and claims of incompetency are very stale. I must wonder Mr. Tricque if you only read sources that pass scrutiny of your own self-review and ignore past and current peer-reviewed literature that has been plentiful for many decades, is ongoing, and is become more and more available recently. Also, there are mountains of gold-standard mainstream accepted principles and health strategies and analytical approaches that are considered wise for optimal health and wellbeing in connection with all topics, diseases, symptoms, etc., regardless of whether or not the mechanism of assault and/or the mechanism of cure is fully understood. This is the year 2011, please credit the intelligence and awareness of Macleans’ readership for being in general an informed readership.

          • I stand corrected as to Freelance_Human’s familiarity with the IC spectrum query site. Apologies. I believe there are issues with the rest of his arguments.”It is not true that a body and/or cell in the body is never being penetrated by individual waves” I agree.”cells in our bodies must work to deal with (possibly) infinite combinations of waves penetrating, all different, some individual, some in who knows what combination [again likely infinite temporal or finite material conditions related to the physics of the wave(s)” All kinds of electromagnetic (EM) waves combine at every single point in the universe. Thus, there is a sum of all the EM at every point in the body: each of our cells face one combined EM field, they do not work to react to the many waves that may be combining at each cell point.” our bodies strive for a balance but are constantly in flux, the environment strives for balance but is constantly in flux” Our bodies strive for balance with or without EM fields. I do not know what the second clause is intended to mean.”indeed my body and your body are in effect antennas because our bodies do absorb energy transmissions” Yes, they may absorb EM waves. No, they are not antennas. Antennas convert EM waves to electrical signals. Nothing in the body does this.”energy penetrating your body takes many forms, not only heat.” microwaves only cause heating. If they interact with human cells, they will only cause a heating effect. Below a certain threshold, the heat produced is negligible when compared with the body’s own heat level and with the body’s ability to regulate that level. The body can handle easily any heating effects.”Mr. Tricque, I know that you are well aware of the time it takes to heat tissue with electromagnetic waves — you claim I do not know my physics, but you are pretending not to know yours … energy is neither created nor destroyed, so if sufficient time hasn’t passed to create heat, the energy is present in a form other than heat.” No, as stated previously, only heat is created.”Your time-worn presentations regarding heat, inabilities to perceive EMF in a sensory manner that we may or may not notice, and claims of incompetency are very stale.” I do not know what the first clause is intended to convey. To the second clause I say, it has not been demonstrated that anyone has the ability to perceive microwaves reliably at below safety threshold levels. As to the final clause, it does not matter if one thinks an argument is stale or not. It matters whether it stands or not. So far, the argument has not been effectively countered.”Mr. Tricque if you only read sources that pass scrutiny of your own self-review and ignore past and current etc.” No, I read all sources and subject all to the same careful scrutiny. As should everyone else.”Also, there are mountains of gold-standard mainstream accepted principles and health strategies and analytical approaches that are considered wise for optimal health and wellbeing in connection with all topics, diseases, symptoms, etc., regardless of whether or not the mechanism of assault and/or the mechanism of cure is fully understood. ” This is correct. In that vein, if, after more than 60 years of research, the evidence suggesting microwaves at below safety levels have effects is statistically tenuous at best, and there is no plausible mechanism of effect, then the matter is not of concern.”This is the year 2011, please credit the intelligence and awareness of Macleans’ readership for being in general an informed readership.” The intelligence, awareness and informed nature, whatever they may be and whatever I or anyone else may evaluate them as, are again immaterial to this discussion. The arguments presented in this discussion are what count. So far, they have been lacking.

          • There’s no point in me replying to each of your points – others have spoken and I must move on to other things. Hmm, I imagine you’ll feel obligated to pounce on that too, or remark that you think I bowed out because you think I don’t have a leg to stand on. I’m not interested in changing your mind; I only want everyone, including you, to have plenty of information to draw on to enhance decision-making regarding personal choices.
            [I hope some others are still reading these comments because actually I’m bowing out with a giggle … gotcha! I’m not a “his”, I’m a “her”. See ya on the flip side!]

          • If you are admittedly wrong then everything you’ve said and will say may also be wrong by way of logical argument so you are completely discredited and therefore insignificant.

  37.  ‘Art Trique’…you’re babbling a lot about natural microwave sources and the like but you fail to mention specific natural levels relative to manmade levels the latter of which have been growing exponentially over the past decade. It’s called ‘latency period’ and no – humans have NEVER before been subjected to the levels of exposure to which we are right now. Furthermore, Is it such a stretch to imagine that there might be people that are particularly sensitive so such radiation? (Please – save your ‘nocebo’ spiel. That’s a cop-out.) Try checking our independently-funded research. 

    • “…manmade levels the latter of which have been growing exponentially over the past decade…” No the levels have not grown exponentially. The average level has probably increased, particularly in urban areas, but the order of magnitude has remained within a factor of one, and but the variance has declined. [Base knowledge: Mobile phone networks rely on cell geographies; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_phone_network .] That is
      because more users have been accommodated by methods such as taking previous
      large cells and serving them from the existing transmitter site with more
      antennas each covering a smaller slice of the cell area at equivalent effective
      power, or by splitting the existing large cell into smaller cells each at
      lower power levels. Although I would be happy to consider any scientific
      research studies that show levels have increased exponentially.” Is it such a stretch to imagine that there might be people that are particularly sensitive so such radiation?” Anyone can put forward any number of hypotheses. One must then prove them, in lay terms. In scientific terms, one must try one’s hardest to falsify it, prove it wrong. The EMF sensitive hypothesis has been easily falsified, and so has failed.”Please – save your ‘nocebo’ spiel. That’s a cop-out.” If you cannot understand what a nocebo effect is (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo ), then you are proceeding on emotional or irrational rather than scientific grounds, which is not a basis upon which to argue seriously one’s case.”Try checking our independently-funded research.”
      One should check out all relevant research on a topic,
      taking into account funding sources and subjecting research at risk for bias
      because of its funding sources to special scrutiny (you would be correct in
      thinking me both sad and appalled that, throughout the scientific world,
      studies still are published without funding sources properly identified). One
      could be hyper-correct in saying that no research is completely without risk
      from funding source bias, but I think it is generally accepted that publicly
      funded research is relatively risk free. And there is plenty of such research
      suggesting that health effects from microwave electromagnetic frequencies (EMF)
      at levels below safety standards do not exist. For example, and particularly
      relevant to this Macleans article, a German publicly-funded study ” Acute
      health effects by mobile telecommunication among children” involving 1,498
      children (8–12 years) and 1,524 adolescents (13–17 years) (see http://www.emf-forschungsprogramm.de/forschung/epidemiologie/epidemiologie_abges/epi_045.html
      ) that concluded “The results of the study do not indicate an effect of
      objective exposure to mobile telecommunication networks on chronic or acute
      well-being of children or adolescents. In few cases an association between
      subjective exposure to mobile telecommunication networks and health complaints
      was found. This underlines the importance of determination of the objective
      exposure in respective studies. This is the first study measuring exposure to
      mobile telecommunication networks among children and adolescents. Overall,
      exposure is very low and far below the reference levels.”Finally, what
      many in the EMF scaremongering community term “independently-funded”
      research turns out to be funded by advocacy groups, and so is not risk- free of
      funding bias. Though, as with any research, the chance of risk of funding bias does not exclude
      the research from consideration; it just means the research has to be
      scrutinized with care.Sorry to all for the long

  38. From the article, quoting Ms. St. Clair: “For her, the fact that people are willing to drop everything and move is evidence enough that electromagnetic frequencies cause harm. “Apprehension doesn’t make people leave their lives behind or quit their jobs,” she says.” I am not a psychiatrist, but even I know that people do in fact do just that. And severe psychiatric disorders do cause people to leave their lives behind; for example, Ted Kaczynski aka the Unabomber (Note: I do not in any way mean to compare Ms. St. Clair to or equate her with Mr. Kaczynski).

  39. The article says that EHS is a “medical condition”. This is incorrect: it is not recognized as a medical condition by any medical or scientific authority. If the family doctor of the Boutet family made a diagnosis of EHS, he or she is outside the medical or scientific community. I think the fact that Ms. Boutet is a naturopathic doctor gives a clue to ascription of the daughter’s symptoms to EHS. Naturopathy is already outside of medical science itself, and it would seem that science was probably abandoned in the hunt for the real cause. I would love to know what tests were done (and why the article’s author Mr. Ballingall did not ask for and/or choose to include such information in the text) to establish the diagnosis for Amelia, and further for Ms. St. Clair too. There are thousands of possible causes of such non-specific symptoms as headaches, muscle soreness, insomnia and tingling. Which other causes were investigated seriously? and how? Like the case of supposed EHS in a school in Ontario, where another “advocate” — I say “ignorant of science layperson” — Rodney Palmer claimed that all other causes had been eliminated but provided not a shred of proof of anything of the sort, I suspect the answer for the BC cases reported here is very little to none. Most sadly, that means that the true cause of the symptoms remains undiagnosed.

    • There are MDs in North America (and elsewhere) and jurisdictions outside North America that are familiar with EHS symptomology and do diagnose EHS as a physical impairment. As with any set of symptoms, certainly there can be various underlying causes/triggers/treatments/outcomes. It’s unwise to ignore any environmental pollutant that our bodies are constantly absorbing during the course of everyday living. Electromagnetic fields happen to be invisible, tasteless, odourless, almost noiseless, and often not detected by our sense of touch during standard use. If the environment is altered only by substantial removal of sources of electromagnetic fields and at the same time incidence and/or severity of symptoms or ailments declines suddenly and to dramatic degrees, it can only be a good thing.

      • My position on doctors diagnosing EHS as being caused by microwaves is already known.”If the environment is altered only by substantial removal of sources of electromagnetic fields and at the same time incidence and/or severity of symptoms or ailments declines suddenly and to dramatic degrees, it can only be a good thing.” Unless the matter is studied scientifically, the anecdotes about getting better after the removal or microwaves are of little use. In part, since microwaves are already ubiquitous as I have pointed out, one cannot remove them from anyone’s environment completely. And if someone has some other underlying condition, deceiving them into thinking the are better  does them no good … and even may be disastrously dangerous.

        • I’ll speak more colloquially. Just because waves of electromagnetic fields are bee-bopping all over the place and our bodies absorb them on a regular basis, doesn’t mean it’s good to add “extra” man-made forms of this energy into our bodies (in some combination soup or whatever; if you have a half-full pot of soup and you keep adding more of its ingredients and/or different ingredients, eventually the pot will overflow). Yes, I realize someone is likely to say that’s not scientific. I’m not trying to help heavy-duty scientists grasp stuff; they’ll come to their own conclusions by whatever path. I’ve been checked for a number of conditions during my life – as probably many other people have been; there’s no point discussing the merits of false-positive, false-negative, bla-bla-bla. I’m pretty sure this is my second to last post here. I have to reply to one more of yours because it will be entertaining for many.

    • If you are looking for proof of anything you will be waiting a long time. Meanwhile, people and animals are getting sick and is this really about proof anyway? I’m not sure what the underlying issue of ‘mistrust’ is of anything that doesn’t have a ‘scientific’ stamp on it when the medical community frequently changes it’s mind about what is healthy and what is not. For instance, it was once thought that milk helped stomach ulcers when it was discovered that in fact it exacerbated the condition so how can you place your health and the health of others in a system that changes its mind.

      • Sabine suggests we should not wait for science to examine health problems. Is there another model she suggests? She has referred to “common sense” before. However, common sense alone is not sufficient. Our common senses are deceived far too easily … as illusions prove handily. Try looking at these rotating face masks http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_hollow-face/index.html . Will yourself to see them properly. One cannot. That is how good our common sense is.

        • Why are you so afraid of people believing anything other than scientific evidence? What is underneath this extreme effort of yours to discredit anecdotal evidence? Makes you wonder huh? You’d almost think you were getting paid to do this. I hope it’s worth it because you are trying very hard to sell out people’s health and well-being. Why not live and let live?

  40. http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.htm

    Summary of article…

    It comes from the
    Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, which was
    appointed to study the effects of electromagnetic fields on the environment and
    human health.

    This Committee’s
    report, including the draft Resolution, was adopted unanimously on April 11,
    2011 by 17 signatories representing 15 countries. The report is a factual 12
    page summary of the

    current knowledge and
    issues surrounding the use of electromagnetic fields. Notably, in the context
    of wireless technology, it recommends that European governments “take all

    measures to reduce
    exposure to electromagnetic fields”, including banning cell phones and Wi-Fi
    from schools.

    This Report is
    compelling in its urgency and definitive stance on the substantial evidence of
    harm which exists about this industry-driven technology.
    This report makes a
    number of important points, including that:
    – there is sufficient
    scientific evidence of potentially harmful biological effects of electromagnetic
    fields on plants, insects, animals, and humans;

    – it is necessary to
    reconsider the scientific basis for currently low government standards (ie.
    Safety Code 6) which have been developed by the ICNIRP, an NGO with questionable
    ties to the industry which stands to benefit from
    these low standards;
    – overwhelmingly,
    scientific claims of ‘no harm’ tend to be industry-funded, and an urgent need
    exists for objective scientific evidence and publicly-funded research to assess
    risks and appropriate standards; and
    – given the
    unprecedented level of electromagnetic radiation in all forms and the scientific
    uncertainties regarding health hazards, the Precautionary Principle must take
    precedence over the economic, technological and social development of society,
    with particular emphasis on the health of children.
    It is hard to deny the
    facts, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.
    It is harder still to
    believe that any Canadian school board, with the knowledge provided in this
    report (by countries which have had the experience of wireless for longer than
    we in Canada), would allow the children under its care to be forcibly exposed to
    the inarguably cumulative effects of electromagnetic radiation.

    Please note that the
    content of this report is consistent with the two European Parliament
    resolutions passed in 2008 and 2009, which highlighted the harm of wireless
    technology (mobile phones, Wi-Fi / WiMAX, Bluetooth, DECT landline telephones),
    particularly to pregnant women, newborn babies and children.

    In addition, all of
    these reports: (1) asserted that the standard set by the World Health
    Organization (and thus Health Canada) is not only inadequate but outdated; and
    (2) affirmed that electrosensitivity is a valid physical disability, and
    electrosensitive patients require special protection.

    The Council of Europe
    is comprised of 47 countries and the EU Parliament represents 27 countries.
    These two separate institutions of European leaders have examined the issue
    thoroughly and come to the same conclusion regarding the need to protect their
    citizens from electromagnetic

    • The Council of Europe and the EU Parliament both cited as their primary source the Bioinitiative Report, a report so egregiously bad, that organizations as diverse as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) and the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (the department in the German government responsible for health research into and regulation of, amongst other things, microwaves) critiqued it heavily (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioInitiative_Report for more). When the EU Commission, reacting to the EU Parliament’s resolution, referred the matter — again — to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), who — again — reaffirmed existing safety standards. The SCENIHR report is completely on-line and, depending on one’s familiarity with science, one can go through the report’s analysis and conclusions at the level of complexity desired. It is an excellent, balanced and well-written resource. See http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/ .

  41. I WAS a healthy 38 year old who ate well and exercised daily.  That was before wifi was installed in the school that I work at.  Soon after the installation, I started to experience a strange weakness in my body, headaches and nausea at work.  These symptoms went away when I was at home but continued to happen each day at work, with the headache and nausea worsening the longer I was there.  I am currently working reduced hours and having to use my sick days because I can’t function at work.  My off hours are spent recovering and resting so that I can go back to work the next day.  I have to wait 10 months to see a specialist in order to get a diagnosis.  Is this technology worth the health effects it is having on sensitive people, making us disabled?  Is it worth the possible health effect that it is having on growing children?  Who is going to take responsibility for the increased cancer rates among the population twenty years down the road?  Why would we risk the damage to future generations when the same technology can be achieved with a hardwired computer?  Many of the people who have commented that this does not exist, may one day be in the same boat as I am, wondering why Health Canada won’t follow the lead of other countries and warn their citizens that they are being harmed by this technology.  Other countries are taking their wireless out of schools and public areas, while Canadians blindly follow Health Canada’s obsolete Safety Code 6, rolling wifi out wherever possible.  Wake up Canada!

    • I am deeply sorry to hear about your situation. It’s as if sensitive people like you and the children (and animals) are the canary’s in the coal mine and unfortunately, you are not alone and subsequently, will be in much greater company as this inhumane government forges ahead full steam with their smart grid agenda against these all-important and ignored signs.

  42. FYI, Art… Women’s College Hospital is now diagnosing EHS. FYI, Art…the World Health Organization is currently considering adding MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) and EHS (Electrical Hypersensitivity) to its list of formally recognized diseases. FYI, Art…Sweden formally recognizes EHS as a disability for which people who cannot work because of it can receive financial compensation. FYI, Art…The Human Rights Commission of Canada recognizes EHS as a legitimate disability.

    BTW, Art…no one has to prove anything to you with regard to sensitivity to EMR. YOU are not a doctor. 

    • “Sweden formally recognizes EHS as a disability for which people who cannot work because of it can receive financial compensation. … The Human Rights Commission of Canada recognizes EHS as a legitimate disability.” Correct. However, neither consider it a medical condition, nor a medical condition that is caused by EM waves.”no one has to prove anything to you with regard to sensitivity to EMR. YOU are not a doctor.” Correct. People can see whomever they want, and doctors can do whatever they want, within the bounds of professional regulations. That does not mean one should not point out where they, or arguments put forward in their favour, are incorrect or illogical on the topic.

      • How long did it take you to write all this crap? I need a shovel just to get through the first couple of sentences.

  43. Thank you, Maclean’s. The “weight of the evidence” argument that public health and Health Canada uses when negating the seriousness of this issue does not take into consideration the implications of industry-funded research. THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES INDUSTRY TO REPORT NEGATIVE CONCLUSIONS. Therefore, “the weight” is unbalanced, shifting towards the interests of industry and interpreted by Health Canada and others as: needing more research. To recognize the influence of industry is a no-brainer to me. Health Canada’s refusal to be cautious in light of this is truly beyond brainless and is, in fact, criminal.

    • “THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES INDUSTRY TO REPORT NEGATIVE CONCLUSIONS.” There is no law requiring anyone to report any negative or positive conclusions. To reduce possible deleterious effects of such, we should all be in favour of regulations requiring all studies to be registered so that they can be followed up on.”To recognize the influence of industry is a no-brainer to me.” There is plenty of research from public sources as well that does not support negative health effects of microwaves.”Health Canada’s refusal to be cautious in light of this is truly beyond brainless and is, in fact, criminal.” Health Canada and every other authority that regulates microwaves in the developed world has adopted broadly similar safety standards.

  44. Bravo MACLEANS on your story!  

    I know first hand what this family is going through. 

    Unfortunately, rude and insensitive comments are made by readers who have developed serious addictions to wireless technologies, or are simply in the employ of the wireless industry and aim to discredit anyone who does no agree with them.

    Fact: Over 6000 German medical doctors of all disciplines are urging their government to much greater caution, as they are now witnessing the MEDICAL FALLOUT of wireless radiation in their medical practices on a daily basis.

    Scientists have warned long ago that this will happen, since man-made radiation has far exceeded earth’s natural radiation. No creature will flourish in a radiation polluted world.

    • “readers who have developed serious addictions to wireless technologies…” Sigh. Whether one is addicted to wireless or any other substance or not, does not matter. It is one’s arguments that count.”…or are simply in the employ of the wireless industry…” Casting aspersions against one’s adversaries does not address their arguments. Both the first two snippets are examples of poisoning the well, a kind of ad hominem logical fallacy attack (attack on a person rather than their argument). “and aim to discredit anyone who does no agree with them.” One should not intend to discredit anyone; one should intend to counter their arguments. That is the approach I seek to take.

    • “Fact: Over 6000 German medical doctors of all disciplines are urging their government to much greater caution” Mr. Schluschen refers to the Freiburg Initiative. It is an on-line petition, which is not a hard source of evidence. It gets worse. The only confirmation of the number of people who signed is at http://web.archive.org/20080503124921/http://www.elektrosmognews.de/livelisten.htm . It says 1,000 people signed, but lists only 389. 6% on the list are not German. 12% are dentists. 6% are homeopaths. 7.5% are naturopaths. That leaves 289, out of about 290,000 doctors in Germany (per The Economist World in Figures 2011), or a trivial 0.10% of German doctors. It gets still worse. Saying a quantity of “doctors” have a certain view is a double logical fallacy, both Argumentum ad populum (because a certain number of people hold a view, it must be true)  and Argument from authority (because doctors hold a view, it must be true). How many of these doctors have any grounding in the subject? Perhaps we can ask the plastic surgeons on the list? or the orthopedic surgeons? or the sports medicine doctors? It gets even more worse. The German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (the government health body that regulates, amongst other things, microwaves), in a 2009 summary (only available as a PDF in German, at http://www.bfs.de/de/elektro/hff/papiere.html/Synopse_EMF.pdf ) of their positions on various EMF and health topics addressed “Doctors’ appeals critical of mobile telephony” and referred to a meeting in August 2006 where, amongst others, the originators of the Freiburg Appeal, Drs. Waldmann-Selsam and Eger, were present. The BfS said that: the cases presented as evidence for the Appeal did not meet the German standard for case descriptions (the Robert Koch Institute criteria); the health issues proffered were not objectively described either systematically or thoroughly with medically recognized diagnostic methods; and an impartial and reproducible analysis of alternate explanations and their systematic elimination did not take place. The BfS concluded that the case descriptions presented did not support the posited causal relationship between EMF and health and that current scientific research studies that followed the guidelines of good epidemiological practice spoke against such a relationship.”Scientists have warned long ago that this will happen, since man-made radiation has far exceeded earth’s natural radiation. No creature will flourish in a radiation polluted world.” The sum of all natural EM radiation in the world far exceeds man-made radiation. Clue: EM radiation includes everything from longwaves, to microwaves, to light, to gamma rays. The sun’s radiation reaching earth alone swamps anything man-made.

      • More smoke and mirrors compliments of art trick.

      • A.T.
        You either have a serious dependency to wireless devices, or you are in the employ of the wireless industry. You, like many others haunt sites like this in an effort to discredit anyone who does not agree with the safety spin of industry. No one in their right mind devotes so much time and energy to voice an opinion.  No one ever before devoted so much time on any other issue.

        Has anyone besides lobbyist, defended a product so intense, that ultimately will have grave biological consequences like DDT, asbestos or formaldehyde for our entire planet?
        You search the web for anything to discredit anyone who opposes this wireless hubris.

        Have you ever noticed that every INDEPENDENT scientist who is critical of industries claims of wireless safety is attacked, even though they are world renown scientists?

        Why is it, that Europe, where most research is done issued warnings long ago?
        Canada’s lax Safety Code 6 has come under intense criticism by scientist from around the world. At the last meeting, they expressed their disbelief at the scientific ignorance of Health Canada.

        The family of Amelia Boutet is not the only one seeking a normal life without the constant presence of man made radiation.

        The scientific evidence of harm by low level, non ionizing radiation has been known for decades, even by the US military. Unfortunately corporate greed and financial interest comes first.

  45. people once thought cigarettes were safe and cool…… now we put pictures of throats and lungs infested with cancer on the box. eventually the majority will have to come around, unfortunately much like cigarettes it will take thousands of people getting sick before people start listening

    • It is a logical fallacy to suggest that, because something before turned out to be dangerous, something uncertain now will turn out to be dangerous too.

  46. People look outside themselves to external authority far too often for what to believe.  Pets don’t consult a specialist before leaving town ahead of an impending earthquake.  We’re losing bee populations in part due to increasing levels of “Electro-smog”.   My Military Grade microwave proof  hat’s off to people like Una St. Clair of Citizens for Safe technology and other electrosensitive people for helping to wake us up to this looming danger in our midst.  Barry Trower on Youtube reveals that the government and military knew all about this years ago.  It’s a bit of a stretch for many to consider that the government is not working in the citizenry’s best interests but is instead trying to kill us . . . . . slowly!

    • Excellent post! I saw the Barry Trower interview. I totally get that people don’t want to believe that their government is lying or harming them due to sentimental reasons but it so happens that on occassion children have been known to kill their parents for insurance money so how can you think that a government that doens’t even know you will certainly not do you any harm when they stand to benefit? Would you bet your life on it? Because you do…

  47. The Canadian
    Human Rights Commission in 2007 released a medical report on Environmental Sensitivities
    that list Electromagnetic Fields as an initiator of ill symptoms for some
    within the population. This report gives many scientific references that
    support the existence of this man made condition that appears to be affecting
    more and more. Just as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and chemical sensitivity
    were all once thought to be psychological, we now of course know differently with
    many suffering from these conditions. Just because we don’t have all the
    answers yet doesn’t mean these people should be discredited.

    • “Just because we don’t have all the answers yet doesn’t mean these people should be discredited.” Nor does it mean it should automatically be accepted without scientific scrutiny that their health complaints are caused by EM waves. For those who think this heartless (which really is immaterial to the strength of the argument, but anyway… ): I do take any symptoms people experience seriously and think them worthy of compassion and treatment. I just think that attributing any symptoms to EM waves is nonsense.


    Cumulative or non-rest from such stressors can. Some frequencies incapacitate a person’s delicate neural, brain or heart cells. 

    Each person’s hydration, lifestyle, age and medical sensitivies put different toxic or stressor effects on delicate neural, brain and heart cells. Each person whether an infant,  elder or medically compromised will experience a different effect especially from those radiations in frequency ranges which are similar to human organ, cell and membrane bio-frequencies.

    It is not all frequencies or multiple emissions of which there are many, which directly shut-down, exhaust or kill a brain, heart or neural cell. 

    An analogy: Water itself is “harmless”, just as many frequencies are “harmless”especially if they are short-exposure. 

    Persistent water drop-after-drop put on the centre of the forehead for days (“the ancient Chinese water torture”) with it’s non-stop duration did render the human unable to rest, to heal or sleep. This caused helpless exhaustion. Similarly a high pitch whistle injures a dog with “invisible vibrations” within it’s bio-range hearing frequency.

    Some “vibratory noises” from man-made single, multiple and cross-frequencies are “picked up” by the cells of the brain, skin, neurons or heart and those cells membranes decode the frequency. The cell membranes not capable of “resting”cannot return to it’s own rythym or “bio-pulse-rate. Eventually with certain human ranges and kinds of frequencies cell exposed shut down. They cannot do otherwise” if the offending range of frequencies does not stop. Similar to the dog whistle which does not harm a human. 

    This leads to delicate cell membrane “shut-down” in it’s own defence. Metabolic waste trapped in the cell thus cell-toxification ensues. If no rest or relaxation allows resumption of cell function, cell injury or death ensues.

    If enough cells are injured or die the system or organ fails. Doctors may simply see the symptoms of “cell carnage” or wonky-decoding such as cancerous cells and prescribe costly radiation, chemotherapy or surgery to remove body-parts or replace organs. They may implant heart, brain pace-maker implants, prescribe blood transfusions or depression medications for blood-brain cell or endocrine disorders. New medicine will look at such things as vibration and certain frequencies of radio waves. Some heal, some harm, some kill. Depending on the frequency or duration, if you are new to this, do the research, modern weapons technology use sound to shock, stun or kill. 

    With regard to emissions and gaming and WiFi and frequency staturation, duration, each individual will be different and need to determine their own rest, relaxation, sleep needs or limits to the amount of kind of frequencies they choose to  “use”, this fun new technology era. I love technology. However, I have become educated about the vibratory bath we do live in. It would be our peril to ignore or poo poo those who are affected by certain ranges of the “tasteless’, “soundless”, smell-less frequencies. Modern weapons manufacturers are well aware of risks and injury which can ensure with sound or other radiative emissions. 

    Finding your limits and places of frequency or vibratory sound-peace for your adequate rest, sleep, good nutrition and your ways of cell-rest and repair  is common sense but increasingly intelligent now as homes/offices/schools are more saturated and untested. 

    So this is something to ponder and now would be a good time to do that, most especially for the care of infants, children, teens, adults and elders who are regularly prescribed “depression, bi-polar” and “ADHD medication” not to mention the other array of human mental and bodily injuries, starting as young as 2 years old. Ignorance about the fact that certain ranges of “frequencies” and “sounds” do injure, stun or kill the delicate neural, brain or heart cells, accidentally over time, would be deeply painful to learn about after-the-fact, in my view.

    This is my view as a concerned citizen and mom.

    As it should be do your own research to form your own informed limits, duration, ranges and consent to usages of various technology.

    Marilyn Idle L.L.B J.D. Wellness Advocate for people and the biosphere.

  49. I often worry about the effect of radiation. We have wireless technology everywhere we go. My entire home operates on wireless internet. However, to shun cell phones, internet and everything else in between is to go back to the Stone Age. It is a way to shut yourself away from the world.  These parents have very legitimate concerns about the health effects of technology. I think more studies are needed before we draw any conclusion. So far evidence is really inconclusive. I wish there was a way to just present scientific evidence as it is without any ideological bias.  

    • I disagree. When were people at their healthiest? Way back when… Returning to a time of simplicity balanced with technology means embracing your neighbours and ensuring the health of your community. Do you know your neighbours? The way to ‘shut yourself away from the world’ is to wrap yourself up in a blanket of wi-fi and sit in front of your faceless computer worrying about what people are doing halfway around the world that you will likely never meet. Now that is wasted energy.

      • “When were people at their healthiest? Way back when… ”

        When, exactly, is “way back when”? Before antibiotics? Before the advent of the polio vaccine? Before standardided treatment of drinking water? Before emissions regulations on the burning of coal? When leather tanners and gold mines and paper mills dumped arsenic into the water supply?

        I’m really curious about this time your’re referring to.

        • Oh I didn’t know it was that difficult to figure out but yes before all that you mentioned…when the waters ran clean and there were so many fish you could swear you could walk over them. A time when cancer was unheard of and ditto for diabetes, etc.And are you aware that humans were on this earth and survived a long, long time before vaccines every came around and claimed to cure everyone?

          • Ah yes, when smallpox, diabetes and the flu were 100% fatal, being 40 made you a senior citizen and cancer was unheard of because nobody knew what it was even when it killed them?

            You can’t be serious.

          • Smallpox was not 100% fatal, neither was/is diabetes nor the flu and probably never will be. You are making blanket statements based on neither experience nor knowledge. We are all individuals with differing immune systems and there will always be some, even HIV who will not succumb to the affliction. And your vaccines…have you ever seen the entire graph? When smallpox was already in full natural decline and nearing the end of its potency in came the vaccine declaring victory. The full graphs are available on line I believe for all the diseases vaccines claim to have cured. See? now that is vested in an outcome.

          • “…when the waters ran clean and there were so many fish you could swear
            you could walk over them. A time when cancer was unheard of…”

            Yes, the waters were so clean people regularly died of cholera. Cancer has been well-documented since ancient Egyptian times. People tended to die of it less simply because any number of other diseases – such as tuberculosis, small pox, or others – would get you first.

            Vaccines eradicated small pox, and have eradicated polio in the developed world. We would be on track to eliminate even more of these diseases if not for anti-vaccine fear mongers whose ideas find fertile ground among the science-illiterate.

            It’s fun to romanticize the past when you don’t actually have to live there.

  50. For those of you who think that EHS is just an illusion check out the work of Dr. Jose Delgado.  You will find out that it is you who have the illusion.  Industry is playing with fire at our expense. At this point in time it is estimated that 3% of the population has severe symptoms of EHS and another 35% has moderate symptoms.  The Canadian Human Rights Commission acknowledges environmental sensitivity attibuted to electromagnetic exposure so why are those affected ridiculed and laughted at.  To me this seems like a clear case of discrimination.  Would you laugh at and make fun of those in wheelchairs?  Is one disability to be treated differently than another.  We provide wheelchair ramps, why aren’t we providing safe environments for those with EHS?  We need a “safe” place to grocery shop, malls to shop in, Dr’s offices and hospitals that provide a “safe”environment.  A “safe” resturant and movie theatre would be a real treat.
    I am one who lead a normal productive life until 18months ago. I have had two professions in my working career and am no longer able to work at anything.  There is WiFi or other cordless devices everywhere I go.  Within minutes of being near this radiation I am sick to my stomach and suffer a severe pain in my head.  I am an intelligent person and do not live in fear.  This is not my imagination.  This is real.  Before you dismiss this and run off at the mouth take some time and check out the non-industry science.  It’s all there folks.


    First, check the International Association of Fire Fighters
    2004 determination to NOT allows cell towers or antennas on any of their
    facilities due to proven negative health effects on fire fighters. They also
    provide worldwide research to substantiate this:
    http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp , excerpted below:

    WHEREAS, the brain is the first organ to be affected by RF
    radiation and symptoms manifest in a multitude of neurological conditions
    including migraine headaches, extreme fatigue, disorientation, slowed reaction
    time, vertigo, vital memory loss and attention deficit amidst life threatening
    emergencies; and


    WHEREAS, most of the firefighters who are experiencing
    symptoms can attribute the onset to the first week(s) these towers/antennas
    were activated; and




    Pivotal research from a Bello Horizonte in Brazil has
    linked 4924 cancer deaths (or 80% of the cancer deaths in that city) to cell
    towers placed near homes, see:

    • On every firehall in the developed world, there is a two-way radio transmitter and antenna. Every fire truck has a mobile two-way radio that operates at far higher power levels, depending on the exact frequency commonly between 10 W and 40 W (compare: hand held mobile phone, maximum 1.6 W). Most firefighters when fighting fires carry a portable two-way radio (“walkie-talkie”) operating at between 2W and 6W. Almost always, these two-way radios use frequencies in the microwave band. And have for decades.”Pivotal research from a Bello (sic) Horizonte in Brazil has linked 4924 cancer deaths (or 80% of the cancer deaths in that city) to cell towers placed near homes” Which reputable scientific journal was this research published in (not in any one indexed at the NIH Pubmed site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed )? Where has it been repeated?”WHAT ABOUT FIBER OPTIC CABLE THAT IS 10,000 TIMES FASTER?” Who will pay for the far higher costs of fibre optic cable, and for its installation?

  52. Reading articles like this makes me want to read the itty bitty fine print for our cell phone. “Not to be used close to the head” and “Strongly limit the use of cell phones for those under 18 years of age.”
    Doesn’t that make you wonder why? 

  53. Avoiding electrosmog has become an important health and safety issue for many. Electrosensitivity  is an “emerging illness”, as MS and ALS were decades ago. 

  54. In regard to the WHO about EHS and frequencies, they have recently said they are a potential carcinogen and on the order of DDT and pesticides.  

  55. Links / .pdf / Radio Waves used as Weapons / Torture ……torture “Radio Waves used as Weapons” www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/humanitarian-humanitaire/mchale2003/index.aspx?lang=en&view=dwww.freedomfchs.com/id15.htmlwww.freedomfchs.com/samplelegislation.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/historyofelectromagneticweapons.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/michiganemdevicelaw.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/remoteneuralmonitoring.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/bioeffectsofselectednonlethalweapons.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/bioelectromagnetic-effects-of-emfs-on-immune-system.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/bioelectromagneticweapons2.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/mindgames.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/viclivingston.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/ffchsplaintiffapplicationII.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/ffchsflyer3.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/worlddayflyer.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/ffchsorganizedstalking.pdf http://www.freedomfchs.com/elecharassment.pdf http://www.freedomfchs.com/ffchspressreleaseII.pdf http://www.freedomfchs.com/ffchspressreleaseI.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/bioelectromagneticweapons.pdf http://www.freedomfchs.com/eworganizedstalkingoverview.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/theshockingmenaceofsatellites.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/proofremotemindcontrol.pdfwww.rich-essence.com/TheHiddenEvil.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/thesilentmassacre.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/osatv.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/osatv2.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/osih.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/osact.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/oscd.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/oscope.pdfwww.multistalkervictims.org/ostt.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/src/category.asp?catid=12www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/MindControl.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/MindControlHumanRights.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/Implants.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/SovietCzechoslovakianParapsycho.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/ParaphysicsRDWarsawPact.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/ControlledOffensiveBehavior.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/LaserInnovations.PDFwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/NanoElectronicPhotonicCircuits.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/DarpaII.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/SynTelepathy.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/USSRHypnosisatdistance.pdfwww.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/NavyRegulationForHumanTesting.pdfwww.kingsleydennis.com/Opening%20Pandora‘s%20Box%20_Rev.Ed_%20-%20Kingsley%20Dennis.pdfwww.icomw.org/archives/index.aspwww.xs4all.nl/~sm4csi/nwo/MindControl/Microwave.Harassment.And.Mind-Control.Experimentation.htmwww.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ches2005-limits.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/usarmyrptonmicrowavefx.pdfwww.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/electronic_harassment.pdfwww.bethel.edu/~kisrob/hon301k/project/Final/mind_control.htm http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Handbook/TheHiddenEvil.pdfwww.mindjustice.org/book.pdfwww.freedomfchs.com/byronbweaponsofmc.pdfhttp://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=neuroethics_pubs Posted by: Gerry Duffett3358-A McCowan Rd
    Scarborough Ontario
    Canada M1V 5P5 duffett52@yahoo.com,
    gerryduffett@fastmail.ca, http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=1http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=2http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&field=ordertime&order=desc&page=3  

  56. In May of this year,  the WHO reclassified RF  as a possible carcinogen, in the same category as DDT, and lead.

    Health Canada’s feeble response to this re-classification is merely to suggest caution.

    Interesting that China recently advised against young children using cell phones except in cases of emergencies and recommended that teens limit their cell phone use to 10 minutes a day.

    Are our children and teens much thicker-skulled?

    • DDT and lead are not dangerous because of any WHO IARC classification. They are dangerous because the former is an endocrine disruptor and the latter a neurotoxin.

  57. No one can say this is a free and democratic society when we are having radiation devices put on ALL our houses and businesses WITHOUT our consent and indeed against many of our wishes. My family is spending 40 grand to go off-grid and even then our neighbour’s units will penetrate our fences. My life, my choice, my government? Not on your life. We are not being told the whole truth and anyone who thinks they are deserves to be lied to.

    • “No one can say this is a free and democratic society…” We elect our politicians. Politicians head up government ministries, like Industry Canada and Health Canada, two ministries involved with regulating microwaves in Canada. They propose regulations that get turned into laws via the politicians in parliament. This is exactly how representative government in Canada works and is supposed to work.”My family is spending 40 grand to go off-grid and even then our neighbour’s units will penetrate our fences. My life, my choice” Yes, this is your free choice. No one is forcing you to make this choice, however, and I believe it is foolish if the aim is to escape perceived negative health effects of EM waves.”my government? Not on your life. We are not being told the whole truth and anyone who thinks they are deserves to be lied to.” Without evidence, such statements are conjectured conspiracy theories.

      • I can’t even be bothered to finish reading your unecessarily lengthy response. Try using less words and saying more. I stop dead cold at “we elect our politicians.” Wow man, you are sadly misguided and you don’t even have a good heart.

        • I am happy to use fewer words when fewer will suffice; I only write what is needed to accurately and clearly convey a point.

  58. While the damage from low levels of radiation is not proven, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to support the fact. Studies (not funded by the industry) have shown negative effects on cellular function at low levels, but that only makes the theory “not yet disproven”. I do find it interesting that in North America the standard for maximum exposure to non-ionizing radiation is set by the level at which PHYSICAL harm begins to occur; at which you start to cook. In Europe the maximum allowable levels are about 100 times lower than here.

    We have been reducing the number of sources of EM radiation in our home for the past year and now we have a significant source added against our will. This just is not right.

    BTW, in DirtyOldTown’s rant about vaccines he talks about herd immunity. If he had any understanding of vaccines he would know that, while it might stop you from developing disease symptoms, it does not in any way stop you from carrying and spreading the disease. This according to one of the foremost immunologists in the USA (New York I believe). I do not recall his name, but if you are interested in all sorts of health information with references I recommend mercola.com. Also, on the radiation topic, read Zapped by Anne Louise Gittleman.

    • You may be interested to know that, in addition to being anti-vaccine, Dr. Mercola (who is a doctor of osteopathy, not medicine) denies that HIV causes AIDs, claims microwave ovens are dangerous, and has been censured by the FDA at least 3 times in the past 7 years for selling products that make false and misleading claims. Doesn’t sound like the kind of expert I’d rely on for health information.

    • “there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to support the fact.” Anecdotes are good for generating hypotheses, but useless as serious scientific evidence.”Studies (not funded by the industry) have shown negative effects…” Studies (not funded by the industry) have not shown any effects too.Re North America versus European standards. MacFeegel is incorrect: most of the world uses the same standards, standards which arose from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) report, published in a quality academic journal, Health Physics, in 1998. The entire journal article, not just the abstract (summary), is available as a PDF at the ICNIRP web site at http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf .Last, the statement (or perhaps more accurately repeating the statement) that vaccines “might stop you from developing disease symptoms, it does not in any way stop you from carrying and spreading the disease” is wrong. This is not a forum for discussion of vaccines; one cannot help but rebut such blatant nonsense.

  59. It is saddening that there are so many people so vehemently opposed to even the notion that there is any risks associated with our personal electronic gadgets. This level of anger toward this subject matter brings to light a more serious concern that many are starting to raise regarding how our addiction to technology makes us in fact “Information Luddites” to any scientific inkling that there may be a reason to proceed with caution. What side is really open for hearing the truth come forward. I see a lot of disrespectful name calling and unacceptable behavior any time a news story is about EMF concerns and health.


    There seems to be an overt amount of controversy over a subject that we would think we would like to investigate to no end given its impact on our lives and our children.

    Why the backlash? Possibly we are so addicted that we are angered, annoyed if anyone tells our narcissistic behavior may be harmful to others let alone ourselves. OR Could it be that a multi-trillion dollar industry pays/employs lobbyist and PR firms to shrill there comments to bury intelligent debate and discussion in public forums like this?

    My bets are on both…

    • Absolutely well said! All my money goes to companies hiring shills to troll these forums because a lot of ‘their’ arguments are counter-intuitive. It’s not ok for us to drink fresh raw milk but placing a radiation device on our homes that run 24/7 is? Ah ha…yah..ok. Mind you I must place a few cents on some people reluctant to admit that something they are doing is causing harm to them and others and so needs to be changed. People are opposed to change because there is a period of adjustment which can be uncomfortable whereas remaining in the dark seems comforting to some but you can’t stay in the womb forever.

      • By dismissing any poster who disagrees with you as a hired “shill”, you discount opposing opinions before they are even stated. Why is it counter-intuitive to rely on accepted science over anecdoatal evidence?

        • I believe I addressed that in another ‘answer’ to one of your posts. Lay people have nothing to gain by telling their story whereas companies and those vested in companies who stand to gain from the outcome of a study are more likely not to disclose all of their findings as they are not legally required to do so…I already said all this somewhere else. I think you should re-read Wayne Frisch’s post a little more carefully. To not even want more research done on something the WHO says may cause cancer is counter-intuitive. Not that I trust the WHO but even they say something may be wrong.

          • “Lay people have nothing to gain by telling their story…” True, but that does not mean it can be accepted as scientific evidence.”…whereas companies and those vested in companies who stand to gain from the outcome of a study are more likely not to disclose all of their findings as they are not legally required to do so… already said all this somewhere else.” I have already rebutted this argument elsewhere too.”To not even want more research done…” I say research away. But only make public policy based on the evidence as it now stands, not on conjecture.

          • Whatever anyone wants to accept as evidence is absolutely their choice not yours. You are a bully trying to force your opinion on people as fact when you are nothing more than a big talker.

          • “Whatever anyone wants to accept as evidence is absolutely their choice not yours.” Of course it is. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t present my arguments and counter arguments.”You are a bully trying to force your opinion on people as fact…” 1. Calling someone a bully is an ad hominem attack (personal attack). 2. I cannot “force” my opinion or facts on any one; people have to and will make their own conclusions. However, I will argue my points forcefully. 3. I have pointed out my opinion as well as facts, and even more importantly the opinions and facts of more knowledgeable sources on the topic than I (of which there are many! ;-) ); I have tried to provide some references so that readers can see what support exists for what I write; I have pointed out where others have not provided any evidence or references so that their readers can test what they say.”…when you are nothing more than a big talker.” This is another ad hominem.

        • I love the “pharma shill gambit”. Here, rechristened as the “telecom shill gambit” It is a logical fallacy, and does not address the arguments of whomever is commenting.

          • You use fancy words and well-structured sentences but say very little.

          • I am sorry that Sabine does not appear to like my vocabulary. I am tempted to point out again that this does not counter any argument I have made.”…but say very little.” I seem to be countering every comment made quite effectively, so much so that Sabine now seems to be resorting to ad hominem (Sabine: this means personal) attacks rather than cogent (Sabine: this means “Reasonable and convincing; based on evidence; appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; forcefully persuasive” per Wiktionary definition at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cogent ) arguments.

      • I think it is perfectly acceptable to have raw milk delivered all over major urban centres around the world. That way, we can get rid of everyone susceptible to tuberculosis. And we should never allow any device that spews radiation, especially at 630 THz. There is no way I would choose to remain in the dark and permit such a device.

        • But you have nothing to say about Wayne Frisch’s comments nor any of Gary Duffet’s links? I suggest you research every one and get back to us on that. You are sad, very sad and that is my opinion.

          • Sabine, you are correct: I did not reply to Mr. Frisch’s comments above. I will do so as soon as I can. In the case of Mr Dufflet’s comments, I was distracted into ignoring his posts by those related to HAARP (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program for more on HAARP ) and mind-control fringe theories. I will answer any comments he makes, where he makes comments, though he mostly seems to post links.

  60. Documents, Books, & E-Books / Microwave Weapons / .pdf
    Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance
    “Radio Waves used as Weapons”

    http://freedomfchs.com/id15.htmlPosted by: Gerry Duffett3358-A McCowan RdBasementScarborough OntarioCanada M1V 5P5 duffett52@yahoo.com,gerryduffett@fastmail.ca, http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general& field=ordertime&order=desc& page=1 http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general& field=ordertime&order=desc& page=2 http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general& field=ordertime&order=desc& page=3

  61. I’m the 4th Canadian recognized by CPP Disability for Electro-hyper-sensitivity, so yes, folks, it’s real.  I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone:  very isolating and debilitating.  UK scientists predict that by 2017 50% of the population will be EHS, so you can play games while you guess if you’ll be one of the lucky 50%, or you can admit that microwaves, aka radio frequency radiation, are harmful to living tissue no matter the source of the radiation–cell phones, cell networks, wifi, smart meters & smart grid, cordless phones, baby monitors or microwave ovens, PDAs, Blackberries, etc.  Think of what your microwave oven does to perfectly fine bread–yuck!–or to meat if left a second too long–leather.  RFR/microwaves are doing the same to us, only slowly, very very slowly, and we lucky ones who know what’s happening get to leave and find safer places, while the rest of you learn how it feels to be told you’re crazy, it’s all psychosomatic, while your body slowly collapses on you.  I don’t wish it on anyone.

    • “UK scientists predict that by 2017 50% of the population will be EHS…” EHSandhateit provides no evidence to support this assertion, and I am aware of no compelling body of evidence. This is conjecture.

      • You are just a SHILL art trick and out numbered. There is no honour in what you are doing here trying to convince people that it’s ok to radiate themselves. Before the electron microscope bacteria was just a theory and now it is just fact. Soon you will eat all your words. Hope you are hungry.

        • “You are just a SHILL art trick…” Naming someone a shill is a personal attack. Unless you have evidence that I take money from a telecom company or some other interested party and can present it here, it is also a false assertion. Finally, as has been pointed out many times, who someone is, or what the nature of their character may be, is irrelevant to addressing the arguments that person makes.”…and out numbered.” Being out numbered does not counter any argument; it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam.”There is no honour in what you are doing here trying to convince people that it’s ok to radiate themselves.” Honour has nothing to do with it. I am happy to argue in favour of a technology that brings tremendous benefit and not see it diminished by poorly argued claims of health effects.”Before the electron microscope bacteria was just a theory and now it is just fact.” No, bacteria were already viewed using a basic glass lens microscope by  Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676. Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch both advanced the science in the 19th century, Koch ultimately winning the Nobel prize for his germ theory of disease in 1905. The electron microscope was not invented until the 1930s.”Soon you will eat all your words. Hope you are hungry.” One must prove one’s arguments now using the evidence that is available now, not by recourse to some mythical future when the evidence to prove one’s case supposedly might become available.

  62. Because of Sam Boutet and her family’s struggles, I removed my daughter from a public elementary school where industrial strength Wifi routers pulsed 24/7. It is through our fight to prove that this technology is not as beneficial as the telecommunications companies would have us believe that she and I became good friends. She left a thriving naturopathic practice to home school her children. When that proved not enough to thoroughly calm Amelia’s condition, she and her husband made the incredibly difficult decision to get her out of the line of fire. I know that the nay-sayers would like to brand those of us taking such steps as ‘crazies’, and they are welcomed to their opinions, but when the tidal wave of health issues so overwhelms our society that there can be no doubt to the dangers we currently face, please don’t ask me to hold your hand and comfort you through your brain cancer, or your child’s behavior disorder, or whatever else comes down the pipe. This is really happening, no matter how anyone argues against it, and we have to find a better way NOW.

    • “…industrial strength Wifi routers…” There is no such thing as an industrial strength (implying stronger output) Wifi router. The use of the term “industrial” is used to elicit a negative connotation. Threeschreibers is repeating this from other sources, of course, regrettably unaware of the intent.” I know that the nay-sayers would like to brand those of us taking such steps as ‘crazies’…” I do not. I think you are misguided, and that you are basing your decision on false arguments, but it is your decision to make.”…please don’t ask me to hold your hand and comfort you through your brain cancer, or your child’s behavior disorder, or whatever else comes down the pipe.” I am saddened by this viewpoint. I would hold Threeschreibers’ hand if he/she got cancer no matter what.

  63. Looking at the  one in 10,000 cases of autism in the past to one out out of 50 or 60 today in Britain and the U.S., this is a SERIOUS issue. We need to look at possible causes. DO NO HARM is the Hippocratic Oath which advocates a precautionary principle.

    80% of INDEPENDENT research ( i.e. not funded by industry) shows that EMR is dangerous. On the other hand research funded by the cell phone industry either does not show harm or is inconclusive.
    Do we want to protect the children?

    • “Looking at the  one in 10,000 cases of autism in the past to one out out of 50 or 60 today in Britain and the U.S., this is a SERIOUS issue.” Autism is serious. But there is no body of evidence to suggest it is caused or affected by microwaves.”DO NO HARM is the Hippocratic Oath which advocates a precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle also demands we act based on serious scientific evidence, not conjecture.”80% of INDEPENDENT research ( i.e. not funded by industry)…” Plenty of good publicly-funded (as distinct from non-industry-funded, but still privately-funded) research show no ill effects from microwaves.”Do we want to protect the children?” This is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy. I would rather we teach our children that public policy is made using rationality and dispassionate reason.

  64. “homeopathic doctor”? There’s no such thing. The fact that she’s already involved with belief-based medical treatment tells me that there’s a very good chance that she is leaping to conclusions in this case as well.

    Studies are studies. They can be reviewed for statistical or scientific error, but they either show correlation or they don’t. No anecdotes like this article are allowed to influence as “proof”.

    • I do not know where you got your quote, “homeopathic doctor” from the article. If you meant to quote “naturopathic doctor”, which Boutet is noted to be, then according to the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, it does exist as a professional designation. From their website:

      Like a conventional doctor, dentist, or chiropractor, the naturopathic doctor first completes pre-medical studies at university. The naturopathic student then enters into a four-year, full-time medical program at an accredited school of naturopathic medicine. Training includes basic, medical, and clinical science; diagnostics; naturopathic principles and therapeutics; and extensive clinical experience under the supervision of licensed naturopathic doctors. Graduates receive the title “N.D.” or Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. 

      Ironically your attempt to discredit the article and Boutet have seemingly backfired and served to discredit you.

    • Well yes there is such thing as a homeopathic doctor which btw this article is not referring to. There are many MD’s and veterinarians who practice homeopathy, tons in India, Germany, etc. You’re not speaking from a place of knowledge nor experience. And when you say “No anecdotes like this article are allowed to influence as ‘proof'”… allowed? allowed? I believe that every individual can make up their own mind as to what is ‘allowed’ to influence them. No one, NO ONE needs you who doesn’t know what they are talking about to tell them what to think, I call you Shill.

      • Why am I not surprised that you believe in the healing power of magic water?

        • Because you might be finally getting it.

          • That you have no understanding of basic science or biology? Yep. Getting that loud and clear.

          • I was expecting a little more than that from you but obviously I overshot my opinion of you…Yah, we’re done DOT.

  65. The connection is very clear to me. Radiation in any form is radiation. The factors are, how much, for how long and how close? All medical forms of diagnostic radiation are regulated and diagnotistic technicians use protection of metal shielding. Radiation from cell towers and other wireless devices should be used with the same precautions. We protect ourselves from the sun with sunscreen or limiting our exposure. Why then do we refuse to take precautions when using wireless technology?

    • “Radiation in any form is radiation.” Correct. However, whether radiation is good or bad (and it is sometimes both), depends on the type of radiation. X-rays and ultraviolet rays (from the sun, against which we protect ourselves with sunscreen) are both noxious and useful, depending on the dose. The same is true of microwaves, and so we do takes precautions: we limit microwaves in cell phones to power levels unlikely to cause excessive heating, but strong enough to allow communications; and we allow high-powered microwave ovens, but demand they be properly shielded.

  66. My wife is hyper sensitive to EMF and is currently thinking that the amalgum crowns in her teeth are acting like an antenna as she is unable to ground as she collects more than she gets rid of – she wants them out – does any one have any suggestions about doing this and any safeguards to put in place.

    • Greame,

      You can contact the group’ Citizens for Safe Technologies’, there are people who can help with advice.  www.citizensforsafetechnology.org  

      Amalgam contains 50 to 55% mercury.  Oddly, Health Canada warns us not to eat to much fish because of the mercury, but for some miraculous reason, mercury in amalgam fillings become perfectly safe once it is in our mouth!  Sweden has outlawed amalgam in the mid 90ies.  
      Health Canada fails us once again as they have done so many times before.

    • There is no serious body of evidence suggesting that EMF affects amalgam crowns. EMF is not a reason to get rid of them.

  67. Telecommunications companies are the ones doing the fear-mongering scare tactics: insisting that our lives will be dangerously unsafe and inhumanely unfulfilled and that we will be friendless, stupid, and insane if we (and our loved ones) aren’t constantly clutching or accessing a wireless communication device that is networked to most people and places on the planet. Plus of course we have to pay money to someone for the privileges of using these devices that are oh so essential to our every breath, essential to our survival! I accomplish relative safety, enjoy a very humane and fulfilling live, have lots of friends, am not considered stupid nor insane by anyone (as far as I know, unless by Mr. Tricque), and am so far breathing and alive — somewhere between 99% and 100% of the time I accomplish these things without using a wireless communication device.

    Is it important to know that 10-year-old Julius is going from school to the convenience store to get a bottle of juice? Julius will gladly text you to inform you of that. Is it important to know that 14-year-old Stephanie is going from school to the park for her daily session of enjoying a few joints and pounding back a quarter of a 40-ouncer of that day’s alcoholic beverage of choice with her three closest friends? Stephanie will gladly text you to inform you, “gone 2 get some juice.”

    New Rogers’ ads are pathetically ridiculous. I don’t remember the name of the service – something about home monitoring. To paraphrase: now you can clutch your cell phone (another tactic they’re giving for you to always have it on and connected to a network, therefore emitting radiation) to know the instant your child arrives safely across your threshold at home. Hello parents: you don’t need to know when your child is safe – you need to know when your child isn’t safe.

    • Freelance_Human gives many reasons why one might choose or not choose to use a mobile phone. I agree completely that one should make that decision for oneself: if one doesn’t think it useful, productive, style-enhancing, even because of one’s reading of supposed health effects, not using a mobile phone is one’s choice. Just do not expect public policy or everyone else’s choices to be based on or limited because of one’s personal opinion of the health effects.

  68. Increasingly experts recommend precaution regarding wireless technology. Today, two new reports were in the news.

    Why not prevent what has happened to Samantha Boutet and her daughters from happening to others? What would be the harm in, at the very least, applying the Precautionary Principle?

    October 17, 2011 News Report
    Cell Phones And Your Health
    Report: Radiation Testing Flawed


    • At the moment it is difficult to assess the study (it is the same study that is referred to by the news reports in both of WhyWi’s recent postings), as I only have access to the abstract. It makes assertions, but the complete basis of the conclusions is, of course, in the body of the article, behind a pay wall. The link to the actual journal article is http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2011.622827 .I will note that the last sentence of the abstract ends “… and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups.” This is a red herring: standards are set by accountable groups, most often in western nations by government bodies formulating standards that get turned into law by legislatures.

  69. Just a gentle reminder not to feed the trolls on this forum as it debases the content on an otherwise informative discussion .

  70. Thank you Macleans for this forum where the public can come and express their concerns and opinions without prior moderation which makes for a much more free flow of ideas. However, free speech does not come without a price and that is that some opinions and expressions are being attacked in an attempt to water-down and distract from the reason we are here. This is a public forum for the public, not a hard-core science forum for science freaks who live in a small box of double-blind studies. Since Art Trick has hijacked this forum with scientific babble in an attempt to distract from the issue if you want to get a better feel of the previous interesting discussion you can always click on the little minus sign (-) in the right hand corner of their post which will remove it from view. Art trick’s comments for the most part are inappropriate to this public debate. Like a 60 year old vehemently tearing apart an 8 year olds science project this is just not the appropriate forum for you Art if you feel the need to do that to others. There are plenty of science forums that will appreciate your tireless efforts to make everyone feel as if they don’t know what they are talking about. I was in science for many years when I realized that most scientists have little creative outlets eating, sleeping and breathing science reminiscent of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and this just does not make for a well-rounded nor appropriate discussion in a public forum such as this one. Everyone must feel welcome to post here even Art trick but know that when you are being attacked for no good reason other than someone needing to stroke their ego, get their days pay as in shills or just to generally stir the pot that the minus sign (-) is there for just that reason. Happy posting everyone!

    • Thank you very much. That was so well said. I was thinking it extremely odd that a person would spend such an abnormal amount of time and energy attempting to systematically discredit everyone on one side of the argument. I thought it very strange and outstanding. I have seen passionate efforts made to express beliefs but never before have I seen such aggressive, over the top arguments for the purpose of discrediting the concerns of others. I am more familiar with people stating their own beliefs and supporting those beliefs with arguments or point or facts. I would have thought people go to these sites to express beliefs rather than to counter expressed beliefs. I cannot imagine going to a site where people believe in something I do not believe in, and spending an inordinate amount of time and energy arguing with most (perhaps all) of the people who posted comments. It seems the dysfunction lies in the seemingly obsessed behaviour of unbalanced committment to proving others wrong. What the individual seems to fail to comprehend is the counterproductive effect his approach has. If the point is the fight, then he is successful, he can fight. If the point is to make a point, he has completely undermined his efforts by the manner in which he conducts himself. If he just wants to distract people away from facts by busying the comment section with meaningless circles of manipulative arguments, he has failed. Perhaps he is in fact a shill, but I can’t imagine anyone paying for that. 

      Thanks for the tip about the “-” feature. His schtick is getting so old the negative sign is perfect. Negate the fruitless bullying and return to productive, constructive contributions to either “side” of the issue.

  71. Thank you Macleans :-) :-)

  72. It is regrettable that some commenters feel it necessary to call into question the motives of other commenters, make fun of their names (mine is Belgian), impugn their motives, suggest they belong to a certain profession and then demean that profession (I am not a scientist), call people names like “freaks” and “shills”, propose something wrong with the frequency with which some commenters are active here, and even question their mental health. The rules of civilized debate do not show these amongst the list of acceptable tactics.These same commenters complain about aggression, attack, the tearing apart of arguments and the manner of commenting. These characterizations are false. If one considers rebuttals that include carefully quoting the person being rebutted, focusing on the arguments being made instead of commenting on the person, and avoiding the use of inappropriate and abusive language as aggressive, attacking or tearing apart, then I am guilty. They attempt to set the terms of the debate as worthy of comment only from those espousing one particular viewpoint— in their case that microwaves cause health problems — and that others should stay away; after all, comments are for people to feel welcome, a way to indulge the concerns of others, and rebuttal is uncalled for. I think most observers — especially given the rough and tumble nature of many forums on the internet — will consider what has transpired here as within the bounds of civilized debate. If one does not wish to have one’s writings reviewed, commented or rebutted, do not publish them in this forum. Start your own blog and set the terms for commenting, censor comments you don’t like, and preserve an echo chamber instead of a place for debate. A large proportion of the pseudoscientific websites, covering from anti-vaccine viewpoints to evolutionary theory denial to homeopathy, adopt this approach and the tone of the complaining commenters. If you instead believe that ideas should and must be open to scrutiny, that inaccuracies should be pointed out, that poor logic should be noted, that matters of public policy dealing with health should be addressed by resorting to the scientific method, and that all this should be accomplished within polite norms, then come here to Macleans or a skeptic science web site like Skeptic North (hurray! Canadian!) or Science-Based Medicine.On the actual topic at hand, whether microwaves at levels below safety standards cause health effects, my position is that the evidence is weak. In over 60 years of research, there is still no plausible causal mechanism and results consistently get weaker as one moves of the hierarchy of evidence. Just yesterday, another large-scale long-term study (high up that hierarchy of evidence) published in a prestigious academic journal has once again shown no increased risks of cancer from mobile phones (the full article, not just the abstract/summary is open to the public: “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study” in the British Medical Journal 2011; 343:d6387. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6387). Official panel after official panel asked to review the evidence by governments has concluded that there is no cause for concern (see this summary at RF.com, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa). These review panels include several by the Royal Society of Canada, the oldest association of scientists and scholars in Canada; and once or more times by panels in/of France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, the Nordic countries, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and the European Union Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (EU SCENIHR; the latter’s most recent report from 2009 I again recommend to readers for its balance and ease of understanding). It is true that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) earlier this year changed the status of radio frequencies (RF) to a class 2B carcinogen. However, to equate RF to other class 2b carcinogens like lead, DDT and car exhaust as a result is incorrect as they are already quite bad for health wholly unrelated to their carcinogenic status. Last, the use of loaded terms like radiation to arouse a negative connotation,* appeals to emotion centered
    on children, logically fraught comparisons to known health causes, and conspiracy theories involving big business and government is beyond the pale.Those with whom I have sparred here are clearly passionate in their views, and have taken the time and energy to comment. While we have found ourselves on opposite sides of the debate, I wish them well in their future discoveries in science and health, here at Macleans and elsewhere, and in their broader lives.*in general use, we say “radiation” to refer to ionizing radiation, nuclear radiation and ultraviolet radiation, not non-ionizing radiation like microwaves, light, radio waves or infrared. No one says “turn up the luminous radiation” to mean “turn on the lights”, refers to a “microwave radiation oven” or says “adjust the radiation detection level” to mean “change the channel on the FM radio”. Either one uses the term in the scientific sense, referring to all electromagnetic radiation and explains what that means when using it with a general audience; or one uses it in the general sense, and does not apply where it should not be applied, E.G. to microwaves.

  73. “We know it’s there. We don’t need the proof”. That right there is somebody who has already mad their mind up about the topic and no evidence will ever convince them otherwise. It doesn’t matter that in the few double-blind tests that have been done people who claim to have EHS, the patients report their symptoms even when the transmitting device is *not* transmitting. That result alone should make one question whether EHS is real or not.

    And simply being out in the sun exposes you to electromagnetic waves – that’s what light *is*. Heck, the human body produces radiation all by itself – it’s called “infrared”. I’d be really curious to find out what kind of life Ms. Sanford left behind in Toronto. I’m willing to bet that whet she left behind was a stressful job or stressful relationships rather than supposedly harmful electromagnetic waves.

    (Edited 2012-09-23 to remove ‘Take Ms. Sanford – maybe the “cure” for her was getting away from’ from the middle of the word ‘somebody’ in the second sentence. Obviously hit the mousepad without realizing it and kept typing, but I have no idea where that fragment was supposed to actually go.)

  74. A Microwave Harassment Victim Expresses His Woes through Sonnets

  75. and yet, we are all electro-magnetic beings, we are made of energy and can only survive as energy with energy flowing around us

    • Except we’re not “made of energy”, unless you completely misunderstand quantum physics in the same way that many (all?) New Agers misunderstand it. It’s not the woo-woo you seem to imply.

  76. Cory Albrecht                                           
    Hey Moron, AM/FM radio, TV broadcast signals, cell phones with kids, Computers in Schools are under studies as we speak! Not all people are created equal or have the same DNA, perhaps you are the only one who will never get any illnes in your lifetime? you think?

    • Mike: What? Why would you say that I think nobody else will get sick? That makes no sense as it’s not based on anything I said.

      In any case – yes we do all have the same DNA, though the amino acid bases are arranged differently. And you know what? If wifi broadcast is non-ionizing radiation for me, it’s not going to magically turn into ionizing radiation for you to be able to damage your DNA.

      Do you know how ionizing electromagnetic radiation works? If a photon is energetic enough (i.e. a high enough frequency) it will knock an electron out of orbit from a molecule. If that electron was a shared on binding two atoms together in that molecule it will split that molecule in two. Even if it wasn’t a binding electron, you still have a free orbital making that atom chemically reactive and available for bonding with another atom to form a completely different molecule. If that happens to the base pairs in your DNA it changes the code and causes a mutation which will most likely be neutral but may rarely be harmful or beneficial. The harmful ones cause cancers.

      For wifi broadcasts, in the 2.4GHz range, the photons are simply not energetic enough to
      damage your DNA, my DNA or the DNA of any other living thing on this
      planet. GSM cellphone broadcast photons in the 800MHz (0.8GHz) band are about 5
      times *less* energetic than Wifi.

      The *only* way wifi broadcasts or cell phone broadcasts or TV broadcasts can harm you is if the total power of the broadcast were as powerful as being inside a microwave oven. This power is essentially the number of photons being pushed out by the broadcast antenna of the device.

      Your microwave oven pushes out enough so that 5000 milliWatts of photons hits your food per square centimetre (cm^2). What this results in is that the water molecules in your food try to align themselves with the microwaves so they end up rotating back and forth, vibrating faster and faster. If you remember your grade 9 science, this atomic-level vibration is what we feel as heat. The more vibration the hotter an item feels.

      At 1000mW/cm^2 radiated power were to strike your hand you would be able to feel it and while it wouldn’t cook your hand it would still hurt. That grating on a microwave oven window is shielding which allows only 5mW/cm^2 of leakage, which is why you can peer in to the microwave without cooking your eyeballs.

      Your cellphone has a total broadcast power of 100mW, so even if you could focus it all at 1 square centimetre of skin on your ear it still wouldn’t do anything. Since it’s broadcasting those 100mW diffused in all directions it doesn’t even come anywhere close to acting like a microwave oven.

      A typical wifi router for home use broadcasts at about 50mW of power – again diffused in all direction – so the compared to your cell phone essentially half of nothing.

      So in summary, wifi broadcasts, cell phone broadcasts can’t damage your DNA because the individual photons are not energetic enough, and nor can they even cook you like a microwave because the broadcast powers are orders of magnitude too weak.

      It is impossible.

  77. For those of you who think this isn’t real, I hope you never have to live in my shoes.  I suffer from EHS, I really wish that it were all in my head because I know that I would be cured already.  Scientists have known for a very long time now about the damaging effects of electromagnetic energy, but they side with the communications industry for the big bucks.  All the sceptics you better pray to God that you never get this terrible man made illness!  Believe me, it destroys your life and eats awya at you body, it robs you off you job, your dignity, your family, friends  and your will to live!  God help us all!

    •  While I do not wish to minimise your suffering, Wholefiggs, can you tell me whether you understand the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation and what that says about whether or not a radiation source (when not powerful enough to heat and object up) can cause damage to your cells? What kind of radiation do you think comes from each of lightbulbs, microwaves, cellphones and heating elements on stovetops?

    • That sci-fi scenario still doesn’t make the conspiracy between the government and D-Link/LinkSys/Netgear about wifi poisoning any less of a kooky idea.

  78. For those of us who have developed sensitivities and chronic EHS related illnesses, we ARE the proof that these waves are harmful. There are many studies, WORLDWIDE, that prove that non-thermal low level radiation is harmful. I don’t know where you get off claiming that it’s bogus, or comparing apples to oranges. Educate yourself “DirtyOldTown” and do your research.

    • Imagine a test like the following:

      You’re in a room shielded from outside electromagnetic radiation. On the table is a D-Link wifi router – a kind commonly found in the average home. Electrical tape has been placed over all the LEDs so you can’t tell whether it is turned off or on. It is plugged in to an electrical outlet on the wall which is controlled by a person with a switch in another room but they cannot see you and you cannot see them. The only other person in the room with you is the researcher who cannot see the person with the switch either. Wall clocks in both rooms have been synchronized. Right at the top of the hour the person at the switch rolls a six sided die and records the result. If is is 1, 3 or 5 the switch is turned on and the wifi router in your room comes on. If the die shows 2, 4 or 6 the switch is turned off. Every 10 minutes that process is repeated. Based on your claimed EHS sensitivity, you tell the researcher whether or not you are feeling your symptoms and whether you think the wifi gateway is therefore on or off.

      Because there are only 2 choices – on or off – if you are just guessing you’ll have a 50% chance of being right for any one 10 minute period. Therefore in 10 time periods the guesser will get 5 right and 5 wrong. Random chance means there is a small possibility a guesser will be right every time, so to weed that out you have the random guesser do multiple groups of 10 time periods and you compare for consistency between groups. If they get 7 out of 10 one time they’ll get 3/10 another and the random guessing will be apparent.

      If you are not guessing and you truly do have EHS and the wifi router actually causes you to experience symptoms when it is on and none when off, then in your multiple groups of 10 a pattern will show of you doing better that the 5 right and 5 wrong of the random guesser.

      This test I describe will work even if medical science and physics is completely wrong about the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

      In 20+ years of testing similar to this, no one claiming EHS has ever been found who has done better than random guessing. Nobody. Not a single person.

      What do you think that means?

Sign in to comment.