B. Peter Milne: Conflicts of interest re wireless safety
“Advocates of Wi-Fi and members of this board have often said we need to follow the lead of our Health Authorities. I’ve shared documentation with you already that these authorities are rife with conflicts of interest and are protecting corporate profits not the people.
“Exposure limits to wireless radiation levels from wireless devices is governed by Health Canada through Safety Code 6.
“Cell phone users have dramatically increased from 95,000 in 1997 to over 27 million today. Safety Code 6, based on 6 minutes of exposure, has not been updated since the 1980’s.
“China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation limits that are 100 times safer than Canada’s.
“Just last week, Belgium joined the list of countries banning the sale of cell phones to children.
“Canadians for Safe Technology have redacted documents in their possession, from Canada’s Privacy Act, called Access to Information requests, demonstrating beyond any doubt Health Canada has hampered the independence of the Royal Society and restricted information that is to be made public and by influencing who should be on the “independent” panel and the evidence the panel considers.
“C4ST has raised further concerns that Health Canada’s “weight of evidence claims” do not follow any of the critical steps in open, transparent and international scientific protocols.
“In Canada it was reported last month that a large survey of Canadian science professionals in the federal public service commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, paints a disturbing picture of government scientists who feel they are being muzzled.
- almost 25 per cent of respondents say they have been directly asked to exclude or alter information for “non-scientific reasons.”
- 71 per cent of those surveyed said political interference is compromising policy development based on scientific evidence, and almost half of those who took part said they were aware of cases in which their department or agency suppressed information.
- Fully 90 per cent of respondents, however, said they don’t feel they’re allowed to speak freely about their work in the media, and 86 per cent believe they would face retaliation if they went public with information about harm to public health, safety or the environment.
“How does one continue to trust our health authorities if the scientists can’t speak out with information about issues that can harm the public?
“There are many risks independent researchers are warning [about] that result from wireless technology. Cancer is only one example which they warn has a long latency period of 10-20 year similar to tobacco. Society hasn’t been inundated with wireless technology for 10 years yet.
“The decisions you are making are taking too many risks with the children and employees in this district. You don’t have my consent to take these risks with my child.”