Search Results for: emf

“Radiocommunication and broadcasting services are important for all Canadians and are used daily by the public, safety and security organizations, all levels of government, wireless service providers, broadcasters, utility companies and other businesses.”

That’s how Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Navdeep Bains opened his response to a petition calling for cell towers to be banned within 305 meters (1000 feet) of schools.

The petition, presented by Liberal MP Ron McKinnon (Port Coquitlam, BC) apparently on behalf of some constituents, read:

Whereas:

• It has been proven by L. Lloyd Morgan, Santosh Kesari and Devra Lee Davis in their study “Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults” that children are more vulnerable to the effects of exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation due to their thin skulls and developing brains;
• No laws currently prevent the installation of cell towers near schools and playgrounds;
• Safety Code 6 has not had a major update in the last 30 years despite the number of new technologies created during this time; and
• MWR from wireless devices has been declared a possible human carcinogen.

We, the undersigned, Citizens (or residents) of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to:

1. Update Safety Code 6 to restrict the installation of cellular towers/antennas within 305m of all schools and playgrounds; and
2. Request a buffer zone for playgrounds and schools.

The 2014 Morgan, Kesari and Davis study (referenced in the petition) can be found here. I won’t go into the numerous problems with that paper, but note that the authors do not appear to call for changes to tower siting.

Indeed, as I have written before, “If you want to reduce exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) energy from mobile devices, then we should be putting base stations in every lightpost in the city.”

It would probably drive the petitioners crazy, but the way to reduce exposure to RF energy in schools would be to move towers closer, not farther away. The greatest exposure you have to mobile EMF radiation is from mobile devices, not the towers. How can you minimize that exposure? As I wrote,

If you are concerned about being exposed to RF energy from mobile services, then it seems to me that you would want to limit to output required by the devices. These are the transmitters that are closest to you, whether you own a device or not. The radios in these devices adjust power based on the strength of the signal from the tower. So, my logic goes that if you want the phone to dial down the power, make sure that it has access to 5 bars of network signal. The logical progression is that we need more towers in order to reduce exposure to RF energy.

The response to the petition from Darren Fisher, Canada’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, said “Based on the available scientific evidence, there are no health risks, including to children, from exposures to the low levels of radiofrequency EMF emitted by cell phones and antenna installations.”

It further addresses some of the misstatements in the preamble of the petition. “It is misleading to say that Canada’s guidelines have not been updated. Rather, Safety Code 6 was updated as recently as 2015, to take into account recent scientific data from studies carried out worldwide.” Further, “No single scientific study, considered in isolation, can prove or disprove the existence of an adverse health effect.”

Minister Bains’ response stated clearly, “no adverse health effects will occur from exposure to RF energy at the levels permitted by SC6 [Safety Code 6].”

This petition should have been turned back by the member of parliament. The rules don’t require MPs to accept a petition, and “In accepting to present a petition, an MP is not necessarily agreeing with the opinions or request set out in the petition.” Still, one would hope that our elected leaders would be equipped well enough with the tools to educate constituents, and refute junk science.

In the COVID-19 era, there is lots of new junk science being published in sketchy pseudo-academic journals, such as the “Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents” that proudly proclaims in its call for papers “Easy and fast submission: No registration; No password; No papers to be filled out; No submission by invitation”. Last week, it published (and then apparently withdrew) a gem of disinformation “5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells”, authored by a group from Rome, Italy; Saginaw, Michigan; and Moscow, Russia. The abstract read, in part:

In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells. DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells. The shapes of these waves are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source. These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.

Fortunately, the National Institute of Health is now showing this paper as ‘withdrawn’ and the original Journal is no longer showing it on its website. You can find a scathing review of the paper on Extreme Tech. It should never have been listed by NIH in the first place.

Retraction Watch has a review of the paper’s retraction in its post, “Paper blaming COVID-19 on 5G technology withdrawn” and Elisabeth Bik, writing in Science Integrity Digest, says it may be the worst paper of 2020.

More agencies need to be bold in identifying and clearly responding to junk science. In his response to the petition, Minister Bains ended with a more conciliatory tone than I might have used.

ISED has a collaborative and consultative antenna siting policy that ensures land-use authorities (LUAs)¹ have a say in the location of towers in their communities… Working together, LUAs and proponents can find solutions that address reasonable and relevant concerns or point the way to alternative antenna system siting arrangements. Cooperation between LUAs and proponents through clear and reasonable protocols can result in the development of new and enhanced wireless services in a community-friendly manner.

I might have more clearly defined what “reasonable and relevant concerns” can be. For example, ISED and the proponents (including carriers, public safety agencies and other non-commercial entities) should be sympathetic to aesthetic concerns and responsive to finding solutions.

Despite the obvious hesitation to antagonize any segment of voters, shouldn’t our leaders be willing to call out ungrounded fears and disinformation being spread?

If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, can we agree to clearly calling out the quack?

While CBC may attract lots of visits to its website through articles warning of wireless radiation, it neglected coverage of an important release from a public health official. Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health has recommended that the City of Toronto eliminate its policy of Prudent Avoidance, a 5-year old policy of asking wireless carriers to keep RF emission levels 100 times below Health Canada’s public exposure guideline, Safety Code 6.

The summary from the Medical Officer of Health says:

From its review of recent health evidence, TPH [Toronto Public Health] notes that the majority scientific opinion indicates that the health risk to the public from cell towers and other telecommunications sources of RFs is low.
…
Based on a review of evidence and TPH’s experience implementing the policy, continued application of the [Prudent Avoidance] policy in the form of a stricter exposure guideline is no longer necessary as it does not confer a health benefit to the residents of Toronto.

In a more detailed report, Toronto Public Health sharply criticized the opposing viewpoints.

The most vocal opposing view has been put forward by scientists contributing to the BioInitiative Report. This report has been evaluated by a number of health scientists and public health agencies as being characterized by biased and selective interpretation of scientific data, leading to unscientific and alarming conclusions about a range of health conditions.

Among the most damning critiques of the Bio-Initiative Report, incorporated in the Toronto Public Health report by footnote, was an article in Science-Based Medicine that refers to the BioInitiative Report as “an egregiously slanted review of health and biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) of the sort that are produced by power lines, cellular telephones, Wi-Fi, and other mainstays of modern life.”

Toronto Public Health addressed the question of non-specific symptoms – symptoms that some have called environmental sensitivity to RF and other electromagnetic fields.

There is, however, growing evidence that the perception of exposure is associated with experiencing symptoms and as such, that a nocebo effect with respect to cell towers is likely contributing to individuals‟ reporting of such health complaints. (This conclusion in no way diminishes the serious nature of these complaints which some individuals experience as severe and debilitating.) The nocebo effect refers to the observation that people may experience adverse symptoms because of their negative expectations or concerns about cell towers. In particular, people tend to feel more at risk from environmental health hazards when they lack control over their exposure or have little perceived benefit from exposure.

While CBC chose to give unwarranted attention to some well meaning but ill-informed junk science, Toronto Public Health noted that broadcast antennas, not cell towers, were the major contributors to RF levels in Toronto. It is unclear whether the authors of the CBC articles understood that CBC’s own radio and TV transmitters have been beaming radio frequency energy for decades before the cell phone was introduced. Indeed, Industry Canada’s evaluation of EMF Intensity in the City of Toronto found that the CBC Broadcast Centre is Toronto’s hottest location, still less than 6% of limits.

The Toronto Public Health report cites a review by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health for a helpful explanation for why RF levels would not increase over time:

Although intuitively, one may assume that an increase in base stations means higher ambient exposure, mobile phones do not need to use as much power (due to adaptive control) to communicate with the base stations due to shorter distances. As a good connection translates into lower output power levels, urban centres with higher base station densities often experience lower RF than rural centres.

I wrote about that effect last year in a blog post called “We need more towers.” CBC did a disservice to Canadians in promoting purveyors of junk science while failing to cover the important report from Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health that recommends the elimination of its prudent avoidance policy. The full report is worth reading.

At a recent community meeting, I made a statement that many considered outrageous.

If you want to reduce exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) energy from mobile devices, then we should be putting base stations in every lightpost in the city.

Here is the basis of my line of thought. RF energy exposure decays exponentially with distance from the source. As a result, the greatest exposure you have to mobile EMF radiation is from devices themselves, because the devices are close to you. Indeed, even if a person doesn’t own a mobile device, you can bet that there are phones and data sticks being used by people sitting next you on the bus or subway or walking near you on the street or sitting next to you in the restaurant or coffee shop.

A recent study by Public Health Ontario examined EMF exposure levels near a new mobile tower located adjacent to a community centre in Vaughan, Ontario. The study examined radiation exposure levels at six locations in and around the community centre and found that, at the “worst” location, just 80 meters from the tower, the exposure was nearly 600 times below the safety standard, known as Safety Code 6 (“SC6”). The report also indicates that the hottest location found in Toronto is in the area of Metro Hall, still running at close to 50 times below SC6. The report suggests that Metro Hall’s proximity to downtown Toronto broadcast facilities has driven the higher than average RF readings – not mobile phones or devices. Keep in mind that we have been exposed to radio and TV broadcasting for generations. RF energy exposure is not new.

But let’s return to RF energy exposure from mobile services.

Health Canada states:

Health Canada reminds cell phone users that they can take practical measures to reduce their RF exposure by:

• limiting the length of cell phone calls
• using “hands-free” devices
• replacing cell phone calls with text messages

Health Canada also encourages parents to take these measures to reduce their children’s RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a variety of environmental agents.

Precautions to limit exposure to RF energy from cell phone towers are unnecessary because exposure levels are typically well below those specified in health-based exposure standards.

That is worth repeating. Health Canada has made suggestions to reduce RF exposure to devices, but it explicitly states “Precautions to limit exposure to RF energy from cell phone towers are unnecessary because exposure levels are typically well below those specified in health-based exposure standards.”

Despite the emotions whipped up by neighbours and purveyors of junk science, the towers are not the issue. If you are concerned about being exposed to RF energy from mobile services, then it seems to me that you would want to limit to output required by the devices. These are the transmitters that are closest to you, whether you own a device or not. The radios in these devices adjust power based on the strength of the signal from the tower. So, my logic goes that if you want the phone to dial down the power, make sure that it has access to 5 bars of network signal. The logical progression is that we need more towers in order to reduce exposure to RF energy.

I can appreciate the concerns of neighbours based on the visual appeal of towers – or more precisely, the lack of visual appeal of most towers. So I have great hopes that Douglas Coupland’s V-pole, or similar solutions get deployed in our communities. I’d like to have one replace the municipal light pole in my front yard.

At the end of the day, cell phones and mobile services save lives.

Tell your local municipal councillor that you want more towers – attractive ones, or camouflaged towers – to reduce your exposure to RF energy and improve your mobile service.

Michael Godwin observed:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

Regardless of the topic in an online discussion, given enough time some bozo inevitably jumps the shark by making a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. It is wrong on so many levels, but most fundamentally such comparisons serve to trivialize the unspeakable horrors of 70 years ago.

As the number of eyewitness survivors to the Holocaust diminishes, it is perhaps less shocking to some. Such hyperbole can never be considered acceptable.

GigaOm has an article reporting on comments delivered by Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos at yesterday’s Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2012 Media, Communications and Entertainment event at the Beverly Wilshire hotel in Beverly Hills, California. To set some context, Sarandos was responding defensively to a statement by the moderator about Netflix having “a fraction” of the level of content available to Canadian Netflix users. Sarandos  interrupted, repeatedly saying “not accurate” to something that is apparent to almost anyone else comparing the US and Canadian catalogs.

From the webcast [beginning around the 28:00 minute mark]:

Viewing hours are almost… are very similar [in Canada] to the US. The problem in Canada is not content, the problem in Canada, which is one of our strongest markets, is they have almost third world access to the internet. Not because it’s constrained for any reason except for money. They have very low datacaps with all the broadband providers in Canada and they charge an enormous amount if you go over your broadband cap. It made us be much more innovative about compression and delivery technology so we are less broadband consumptive in Canada.

It’s almost a human rights violation what they charge for internet access in Canada.

Whoa! There it is. The Sarandos corollary: When among the well heeled, it is fair to joke about the travails of those far, far away.

For someone sitting at the Beverly Wilshire hotel, speaking just before the bar opened in the hotel’s Royal Suite for “drinks galore”, maybe it was supposed to be poking fun. I might have started with complaining about the hotel charging $33 for a couple eggs, toast, bacon and coffee. From the comfort of the Beverly Wilshire, perhaps it is too easy to avert your eyes away from the suffering of real victims of actual human rights violations.

Almost as disturbing was the uncritical way GigaOm reported the item. But, that is a different matter for another day.