Canary In The Coal Mine: precautionary principle

Showing posts with label precautionary principle. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2017

Senator Thune & 5G Technology

Letter to Senator Thune in response to Kevin Mottus's request in the above video (at about 5 minutes in):

January 23, 2017

Dear Senator Thune,

Topic selected was "Telecommunications and the Internet" because it was the closest to the topic I wish to address, which is the Mobile Now Act, 5G technology, and wireless radiation health effects.

We know that people are getting brain tumors from cell phones, and neurological effects from other electronic and wireless technology (smart meters, WiFi, cell towers, antenna, etc).

The Mobile Now Act, which you have introduced, will put 5G technology, high frequency microwave radiation into our environment, and will certainly make even more people sick.

This high frequency radiation has never been tested for biological effects. Because it pulses more, and has more waves per second, people will get sicker, faster, with 5G technology.

Current safety standards are sorely inadequate.

Here are a few links to critical information concerning health effects from wireless and electronic technology:

National Toxicology Program (study on cell phones): http://bit.ly/2hvug6T

EMF Scientist (international electromagnetic field scientist appeal): http://bit.ly/1jhlVRF

EMF Portal (scientific research data): http://bit.ly/2cbd82p

SaferEMR.com (Electromagnetic Radiation Safety): http://bit.ly/2iXpuQX

Please do everything to can to assure the safety of the people of America by stopping the Mobile Now Act, stopping the 5G roll-out, stopping the smart meter roll-out, and invoking the Precautionary Principle in regards to all wireless and electronic technology.

Most Sincerely,

Jeanine Deal

I encourage YOU to call or write Senator Thune also. Feel free to use my letter, though it would be better if you stated it in your own words.

Bless us all!

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Burden of Proof

To the City Commission of Battle Creek, on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, I quoted parts of this letter written to the North Carolina Utility Commission, and said:

The precautionary principle states that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted. It is a form of risk management, with the intention of reducing risk. If an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. Which would be all of you in regards to smart metering technology.

This is a letter, co-authored by a group of scientists and health professionals who together have co-authored many peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation.

"The majority of scientific literature related to radiofrequency radiation stems from cell phone studies. There is strong evidence that people who use a cell phone held directly to their ear for more than 10 years are at significantly increased risk of developing gliomas of the brain and acoustic neuromas of the auditory nerve."

"Smart meters and cell phones occupy similar frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning that cell phone research can apply to smart meter radiofrequency radiation. Smart meter radiofrequency radiation consists of frequent very intense but very brief pulses throughout the day. Because smart meter exposure is over a 24 hour period, it can be very prolonged. Pulses can average 9,600 times a day... and because there is building evidence that the sharp high-intensity pulses are particularly harmful, the cell phone study findings are applicable when discussing adverse health impacts from smart meters."

"While the strongest evidence for hazards coming from radiofrequency radiation is for cancer, there is a growing body of evidence that some people develop a condition called electromagnetic hypersensitivity. "

I did, once smart meters were installed where I live.

"These individuals respond to being in the presence of radiofrequency radiation with a variety of symptoms including headaches...."

These professionals have said:

"There is absolutely no safe level of exposure established for radiofrequency radiation."

So, given this information from these educated professionals and their studies, the burden of proof of safety is now on all of you. So where is your proof that smart meters are indeed safe?

Thank you for listening. May you all truly be blessed.

(End of three minute "General Public Comment")

Speaking of "burden of proof," I've come across a couple of new websites with more scientific studies on radiofrequency radiation:

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Censorship & Signs

Total Solar Eclipse seen in Belitung, Indonesia, Wednesday, March 9, 2016 (AP Photo)

Following are my comments given during the Wednesday, March 9, 2016 Battle Creek, Michigan, City Commission meeting...

Consent Agenda Comment

The minutes (of the previous City Commission meeting) state in three places, simply, "Public comment took place." Nowhere in the minutes was it recorded who spoke, or what they spoke about.

I feel this is a gross lack of transparency and a form of censorship.

Perhaps that was not your intention, but it is what it is.

With no information in the minutes about who spoke and what they spoke about, the only public record there is of who spoke and what they spoke about, is in the AccessVision video (recording of the City Commission meeting), which is not always reliable. Sometimes the meeting doesn't record, which means there would be absolutely no public record of public comments.

Proposed Ordinance 03-2016 Comment

Currently the public is allowed eleven minutes total to comment on City business. Now you want to reduce that by 27%.

You say you welcome public comment, but it is deeds, not words.

The proposed Ordinance states, "...very few comment on the consent agenda, so they do not anticipate that these changes will infringe upon public participation."

How can you anticipate when the public is going to participate?

Recent history may show that few comment, but those who do comment, sometimes fill the allotted time and could even use more!

When you reduce public comment time from eleven minutes to eight minutes, you reduce it by 27%. How does that not infringe upon public participation?

Passing this Ordinance will most definitely infringe upon public participation, because the public will have only eight minutes total to comment, as opposed to eleven (which is a 27% reduction in Public Comment time).

If you say you welcome public comment, show it in your deeds, not just your words.

General Public Comment

We truly are on a new frontier. Never before in our history have civilians used the level of wireless technology that is commonplace today.

Is it not a sign, that smart meters are involved in numerous lawsuits in Michigan, throughout the United States, and the world?

Never. Before smart meters. Had I heard of customers suing utility companies over their equipment. Had you? Yet it's becoming more and more commonplace today with smart meters.

Even the City of Battle Creek has even been threatened recently with a smart meter lawsuit.

The precautionary principle or approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or environment, and if scientific consensus is in conflict, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action, which is you in regards to your smart meters.

You have totally ignored the precautionary approach in regards to smart meters. Not only did you tell me that you did not have independent proof of safety of these meters before you started forcing them upon some customers, but now we know that scientific consensus is mixed at best, and points to most definite harm at worst.

I've read a number of the scientific studies that show that smart meters harm us. But I didn't have to read the studies to know the truth of it. I am one who can feel non-ionizing radiation, the type of pulsed radiation emitted by smart meters, unlike most people.

Are you going to continue ignoring the tens-of -thousands of more recent non-industry funded studies showing the harmful effects of smart meter pulsed radiation?

And are you going to continue ignoring the call from 1000's of professionals worldwide for revised wireless safety standards, including the end of smart meters?

Or, are you going to exercise the precautionary principle, and do something like what Marysville, Michigan has done? (Marysville, Michigan, recently passed a resolution for a no-fee smart meter opt-out, enabling utility customers to keep their analog utility meters without having to pay extra to do so.)

Thank you for listening. May you all truly be blessed.

Some after thoughts...

Within the last 30 or so years, we've had nearly a 100% increase in "civilian" use of wireless technology. When I was growing up, no one had cell phones, not even parents. It seems like there were a few adults who had pagers, but it wasn't common.

Not only have we seen nearly a 100% increase in cell phone use in the last 30 or so years, but along with cell phones came cell towers, antenna, WiFi, wireless home phones, baby monitors, tablets, lap tops, other wireless devices, and now smart meters.

We've jumped into this wireless world head-first.

Literally.

The number one form of cancer in adolescents in the United States today is brain cancer.

And today's adolescents are the ones who've grown up with this nearly 100% increase in wireless technology use: Cell phones, lap tops, WiFi, cell towers, antennas, baby monitors, and now smart meters...

Thank you for reading ~ May YOU truly be blessed!

Information:

Friday, February 19, 2016

Undertows, 'Smart' Meters & Canaries in Coal Mines

Wild & Scenic Menominee River by Thomas Young

In the summertime, when I was a little girl, my grandparents, Nonnie and Gramps, would sometimes take my sisters and I on canoe trips down a relatively calm section of the Menominee River in Wisconsin, close to where our cottage was. It was always a big thing to paddle down the Menominee River for me; such an adventure, and I loved to canoe! We would pack our lunch and some snacks, and head out early on a sunny day.

Every year for a number of years in a row, we would travel the same section of river, stopping about half-way at the same little sand-covered island in the river, to eat our peanut butter, jelly and butter sandwiches, and rest, before heading out on the river again. I remember especially loving Nonnie's PBJ&B sandwiches because of the butter.

One year, during our lunch stop, I asked my Gramps if I could take a little swim in the river. From a young age I was a good swimmer, and had little to no fear of the water. But Gramps said, "No, it's too dangerous." I was very surprised by his answer, we had just been canoeing on that river, and it didn't seem, or look, dangerous at all. Gramps proceeded to tell me about something I had never heard of before. He said that an "under-toe" could grab me and carry me off down the river so fast, I could be gone before anyone knew what had happened to me.

Not knowing what an 'under-toe' was, I imagined some big toe under the water, waiting for unsuspecting people to grab and carry off (though I wondered how a toe could do that). So I asked my Gramps, "What's an 'under-toe?'"

Instead of telling me what it was, Gramps said, "Watch." He proceeded to pick up a small, dried-out log that had washed up on shore some previous day, then tossed the log out into the river. It landed about 6 to 8 feet off shore, and just kind of floated there for several long seconds, and again I began to think about that big toe that was under the water, and wondered if I would be able to actually see it grab the log.

While we stood there and watched, the log just floated there as if it were stuck in place. I began to doubt that the under-toe was there, maybe it had moved down the river, maybe it wasn't so dangerous after all, maybe I could still swim there. Slowly the log began to turn a little, then suddenly it started moving so quickly down the river that within no time it was out of sight.

Gramps then explained that an undertow (which has nothing to do with a big toe, of course) was quickly moving water that couldn't always be seen, and that sometimes it was even under a very calm surface of water. So unless you know it's there, and believe it's there, you could be caught by it and carried off.

The undertow was a clear and present danger to my Gramps. Even though neither of us could see it, it was still there, and thank goodness Gramps knew about it.

The pulsed-radiation from 'smart' meters reminds me of that undertow, because even though we can not see it with our eyes, and most of us can not feel it, like my Gramps knowing about the undertow, I know that the pulsed-radiation from 'smart' meters has the potential to cause great harm because I have experienced it first hand.

This memory returned to me as I was writing a response to one of the City Commissioners here in Battle Creek. Commissioner Sherzer wrote in an email to me, regarding the safety of 'smart' meters, "that we may be at a point where we will have to agree to disagree on the matter." I can agree to disagree with him, or anyone else for that matter, about the harmful effects from 'smart' meters. But this 'canary' knows of the harm 'smart' meters cause, and will continue to 'sing' about it. It's your choice to listen, or not.

Here is what I wrote to Commissioner Sherzer:

Mike,

Non-thermal radiation had not been intensively studied for health effects until more recently in the history of wireless technology. And now there IS documented proof of harm, DNA damage, stress to living cells, and other biological harm done when exposed to non-thermal radiation, the type of radiation emitted by the new water meters. Why would over 200 scientist, medical doctors and PhDs, put their signatures on this Appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations if they had nothing to back-up their claims of harm?

https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

The signatories from JUST the United States includes:

Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA

Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept.of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, USA

Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA

Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA

Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA

Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA

Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA

Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA

Dr.Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA

Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA

Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA

Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA

Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University's Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA

Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA

Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA

Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA

Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA

Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Martin L. Pall,Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA

Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D., University of Colorado, USA

Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Camilla Rees, CEO, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA

Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA

Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA

David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA

Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

And there are many other signatories from around the world; 218* total now, and the signatories continues to grow, indicating that more and more professionals are convinced of the harm done by non-thermal radiation.

You can actually access and read the scientific studies on that website. If you have not done that yet, please do so. When you are though, there will be no doubt in your mind that these 218 scientists know what they are talking about.

Though I have read a number of the studies, I don't have to read them to know of the effects because, as you know, I am one of the few who can actually FEEL the effects. And as you know, most people can NOT feel it, and that is why those of us who can, are called "the canaries in the coal mine." Coal miners knew that when the canaries stop singing, there was little time left.

I don't know if you are a father or a swimmer, but consider this: You are swimming with someone you dearly love, and you know there is a strong undertow where your loved one is headed because you have experienced it first-hand, even though your loved one can not see it or feel it and argues that it's not a big deal. Would you agree to disagree with them that the undertow is NOT potentially hazardous, and turn away?

You wrote: "...the question of risk is still to be determined." I would like to know: Why should we have to PROVE RISK of a new technology? Shouldn't SAFETY first be proven, UNEQUIVOCALLY?

Respectfully,