Citizens for Safe Technology
Empowering the public to protect children
and nature from unsafe wireless technologies.
Looking for a specific topic or a past article? Search for it below:
New York Times on same side as Industry in the radiation debate
"The lead paragraph of the New York Times article published today, "Cellphone Ordinance Puts Berkeley at Forefront of Radiation Debate," reveals the paper's bias:
"Leave it to Berkeley: This city, which has led the nation in passing all manner of laws favored by the left, has done it again. This time, the city passed a measure -- not actually backed by science -- requiring cellphone stores to warn customers that the products could be hazardous to their health, presumably by emitting dangerous levels of cancer-causing radiation." The article overlooks the fact that the Berkeley ordinance is simply a consumer disclosure law which brings to the consumer's attention safety information that the Federal Communications Commission requires cell phone manufacturers provide to consumers. Few consumers ever see these warnings because manufacturers hide them in the user manual or in some instances in the smart phone.
"Despite the article's allegation, Berkeley is not the first city to adopt a cell phone "right to know" law. The Berkeley ordinance is more conservative than the cell phone "right to know" ordinance that San Francisco adopted in 2010.
"The Berkeley ordinance was written by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and Yale Law Professor and Dean Robert Post to withstand legal challenges from the CTIA--The Wireless Association because this industry association threatened the City with a law suit even before the ordinance was drafted.
"San Francisco adopted a more far-reaching ordinance in 2010. The San Francisco ordinance required cell phone retailers to issue a fact sheet that mentions potential cancer-causing radiation from exposure to cell phone radiation. In contrast, the Berkeley safety notice does not mention cancer or any other health effects.
"The San Francisco ordinance was adopted on a 10-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors. Mayor Gavin Newsom, now the Lieutenant Governor of California, "called the vote a major victory for cell phone shoppers' right to know."
"When the CTIA-The Wireless Association sued challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance, Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria represented the City of San Francisco. Mr. Chhabria, now a Federal District Judge, strongly believed that the ordinance was constitutional.
"The case was heard by Federal District Judge William Alsup. Judge Alsup ruled that the ordinance was intrusive as it required cell phone retailers to label cell phones, post a warning in their stores, and provide consumers with a fact sheet. However, the Judge decided it was legal to require cell phone retailers to provide customers with a fact sheet as long as the facts were not controversial.
"Judge Alsup negotiated with lawyers from the CTIA and the City of San Francisco about the language for a revised fact sheet. . .
"Following is the language from the revised fact sheet which the Judge approved: . . .
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety - Scientific and policy developments regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters, and other wireless devices.
Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies--Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened to Protect Adults, Children and Vulnerable Populations? Should Parents, Teachers & Schools Restrict Technology Overuse Among Children?
Camilla Rees, Electromagnetic Health Blog, July 19, 2015 An Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks to Children was held at the Commonwealth Club of California on June 22, 2015.
"The focus was on the special risks to children and other vulnerable populations from cell phone and wireless exposures. It featured a special segment portraying actual dosimetry measurements of WiFi exposures in a school. .
"Panelists addressed the questions:
Risks from Cell Phones & Wireless Technologies, Monday 6/22 at 11:30 a.m.
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--An Expert Forum on Cell Phone and Wireless Risks with a special focus on risks to children and other vulnerable populations will be held at the Commonwealth Club of California on Monday, June 22nd, from 11:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
Co-organized by ElectromagneticHealth.org and Environmental Health Trust, leading U.S. advocacy, research and policy organizations, the program will be of interest to parents, teachers, schools and government officials and policymakers. It will feature scientists, physicians, a psychiatrist and public health experts, including EMF experts visiting from the U.K., Turkey and Australia. . . .
View from Trent - Magda Havas
"Imagine a world identical to our own with one exception everyone is deaf. There is no radio and television remains at the level of the silent movie. Telephone communication is visual but beyond that the world is very much like our own.
"What would such a world be like?
"It would probably be very noisy, since there would be no need for noise control and no regulations to limit noise. Car engines would still roar, perhaps louder than they do now, tires would squeal, birds would sing, and thunder would rumble across the sky but we would not be able to hear any of this.
"Now, imagine that some people in this world can hear. They don't realize they are any different except in a few subtle ways. They can predict the coming of storms. They claim to "hear" thunder at a distance. They have difficulty sleeping. In the middle of the night they hear roaring engines, squealing tires, horns blaring and other things that are silent to the rest of us. Because of their poor sleep, they are tired during the day. They become anxious and worried. The noise frightens them but only they can hear it so they begin to question their sanity. . . .
"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has not yet been accepted by our medical professionals. Just like chronic fatigue syndrome, chemical hypersensitivity, and seasonal affective disorder (SAD) it will take some time and many complaining patients before that changes. In the meantime, those suffering need to reduce their exposure to radio frequency radiation not a simple thing to do in our highly technical society . . .
"Our government can play a vital role. . .
Dr. Martin Blank - Excerpted from "Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-age Devices"
The industry doesn't want to admit it, but the science is becoming clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous. MARTIN BLANK
" . . . My message is not to abandon gadgets--like most people, I too love and utilize EMF-generating gadgets. Instead, I want you to realize that EMF poses a real risk to living creatures and that industrial and product safety standards must and can be reconsidered. The solutions I suggest are not prohibitive. I recommend that as individuals we adopt the notion of "prudent avoidance," minimizing our personal EMF exposure and maximizing the distance between us and EMF sources when those devices are in use. Just as you use a car with seat belts and air bags to increase the safety of the inherently dangerous activity of driving your car at a relatively high speed, you should consider similar risk-mitigating techniques for your personal EMF exposure.
"On a broader social level, adoption of the Precautionary Principle in establishing new, biologically based safety standards for EMF exposure for the general public would be, I believe, the best approach. Just as the United States became the first nation in the world to regulate the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when science indicated the threat to earth's ozone layer--long before there was definitive proof of such a link--our governments should respond to the significant public health threat of EMF exposure. If EMF levels were regulated just as automobile carbon emissions are regulated, this would force manufacturers to design, create, and sell devices that generate much lower levels of EMF.
"No one wants to return to the dark ages, but there are smarter and safer ways to approach our relationship--as individuals and across society--with the technology that exposes us to electromagnetic radiation."
C4ST - Highlights from HESA Hearings - Safety Code 6 Is Under Investigation by HESA (Parliamentary Health Committee)
Have you found and read the health and safety cautions in your device?
Union Roots To Know - Canada
A Right To Know: Smartphones, iPads/tablets, Smart Boards, document cameras, routers, etc...
Interview with Dafna Tachover, attorney representing Wi-Fi victims
Dafna Tachover was a highly-paid professional (lawyer, IT professional) in NYC when she became severely electrosensitive as a result of wireless Apple laptops and had to live off-grid in a cabin for several years to regain her health. You can read her story here:
She came back fighting for others, especially kids in schools, to prevent them from being made as sick as she was.
In light of insurance EMR-liability exclusion clauses, think really hard before installing more Wi-Fi and cell antennas in or around schools, hospitals, and other public places. Return to wired connections to avoid the insurance and liablilty implications.
Power to the People Canada (Blog) Walt McGinnis
"Does Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) emitted from your cellphone scramble your brain? If your answer is that is not possible, why then are drivers having up to ten times more accidents after they end their calls? Evidence, decades old, appears to point to brain malfunction induced by wireless radiation as the unspoken cause of higher rates of car accidents."
" . . . It appeared that many industry funded researchers did not notice that the data they provided in their research indicated that the cause of the accidents was not primarily driver distraction but something much more profoundly disturbing. The evidence from the Redelmeier Study as well as subsequent studies have shown that RFR emitted from cellphones was inhibiting brain function and possibly causing car accidents.(2)
"Needless to say the ramifications of this revelation, if proven to be true, were enormous, especially because back in 1998 the wireless industry was about to explode into one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world. The idea that the RFR emitted from wireless devices was dangerous and a health threat was an inconvenient truth that stood between the industry and hundreds of billions of dollars in profits.
"Had the truth emerged then and was acted upon I think that it would not be a stretch to say the course of history would have been changed with hundreds of thousands of lives saved and millions of illnesses avoided. But it would not be so. It is eighteen years later and it seems the wireless industry has effectively kept a lid on the evidence. How they did it and why they were successful is the topic of another very important discussion.
"The Redelmeier Study was well constructed and the data meticulously recorded. Risk factors were carefully evaluated and there were a large number of drivers involved. Everything was set up to generate good data. . . .
Warning Labels for Radio Apparatus Act - Conservative MP Terence Young / C4ST - February 1, 2015 - Ottawa Press Conference (CTV Winnipeg News Video)
Conservative MP Terence Young calls for more effective warning labels on cell phones, Wi-Fi, portable phones, baby monitors, and all wireless devices sold in Canada, in order to protect Canadians and empower them with the information they need to understand potential serious risks to their health from long-term continuous use of these devices, and the greater risk to children. This is the first time a government representative has brought a Bill past a first reading re health warnings and labelling for wireless devices in Canada. He has multi-party support for this Private Members Bill.
A new article in The Tyee. Near the end of the article, it includes one Industry response, which seems to be Industry's old-fashioned style of response that insults the intelligence of the public with regard to corporate positioning and strategies. The article ends: "He [MP Young] said there may not be any evidence now, but he is confident that one day it will be shown that cell phones do cause cancer."
For more details about the Press Conference, Bill C-648, and featured reference materials please click C4ST HERE.
February 2, 2015 - Canadian Occupational Safety announcement HERE.
One time donation: Click the donate button below and follow the instructions on the screen.
Monthly donation: If you wish to contribute every month, please select the amount from the Donation Options list below and click Subscribe. Your contribution will be sent for you every month for the amount you selected.
Citizens for Safe Technology (CST) is funded and supported solely by those who wish to help us. Thank-you for learning, sharing and helping if you can.
Meetings and events on the issue of wireless technologies in homes and communities throughout North America.
Click the button above to sign our online petition to return to hardwired computers in schools.
Click the button above to sign our online petition against Smart Meters in British Columbia.
Citizens For Safe Technology
"Wi-Fi: Is It Safe?"
Citizens for Safe Technology is a not-for-profit educational society made up of parents, grandparents, teachers, business professionals, scientists, politicians and lawyers concerned about the exponential increase in public exposure to harmful wireless technologies.
We believe a profound urgency exists to protect the unsuspecting public, especially children, youth and pregnant mothers from unsafe wireless technologies.
The content of the Citizens for Safe Technology website is provided for information purposes only. Information is subject to change without prior notice. Every effort has been taken to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, but no guarantees can be made.
Neither Citizens for Safe Technology nor its authors are liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site. The authors are not responsible for any contents linked or referred to from this website or any damages resulting from information on those sites.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.