Magnificent letter from Dr. Olle Johansson to British Columbia's Perry Kendall, suggesting the reality of how a public health officer must protect those he serves -- the public:
Karolinksa Institutet
Stockholm, September 11, 2012
Dear Dr. Kendall,
Thank you so much for your kind reply! No need to excuse yourself, I know very well how hard it is to cope with all incoming and outgoing mail traffic.
In addition to the review requested by you from Canada’s National Collaborating Centre on Environment and Health, please, bear the following in mind:
As public servants, it is our duty to always encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, even just single cases, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it — as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur.
You often hear about "safe levels" of exposure and that there is "no proof of health effects", but my personal response to these seemingly reassuring statements is that it is very important to realize, from a consumer's point of view, that "no accepted proof for health effects" is not the same as "no risk". Too many times, 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been: "I/we just do not know". Such fields were e.g. the DDT, X-ray, radioactivity, smoking, asbestos, BSE, heavy metal exposure, depleted uranium, etc., etc., etc., where the "no risk"-flag was raised before true knowledge came around. Later on, the same flag had to be quickly lowered, many times after enormous economic costs and suffering of many human beings. Along those lines, it is now (regarding "the protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields" issue) very important to clearly identify the background and employment (especially if they sit, at the same time, on the industry's chairs) of every 'expert' in different scientific committees, and likewise. It is, of course, very important (maybe even more important?) to also let 'whistleblowers' speak at conferences, to support them with equal amounts (or even more?) of economical funding as those scientists and other 'experts' who, already from the very beginning, have declared a certain source or type of irradiation, or a specified product, to be 100% safe – sometimes even before having properly examined them!
In the case of "protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields", it is thus of paramount importance to act from a prudence avoidance/precautionary principle point of view. Anything else would be highly hazardous! Total transparency of information is the key sentence here, I believe consumers are very tired of always having the complete truth years after a certain catastrophe already has taken place. For instance, it shall be noted, that today's recommendation values for wireless systems, the SAR-value, are just recommendations, and not safety levels, and only take into account acute thermal effects. Since scientists observe biological effects at as low as 20 microWatts/kg, is it then really safe to irradiate humans with 2 W/kg (i.e., with 100,000 times stronger radiation!), which is the recommendation level for us? And, furthermore, it is very strange to see, over and over again, that highly relevant scientific information is suppressed or even left out in various official documents, as high up as at the governmental level of society. This is not something that the consumers will gain anything good from, and, still, the official declaration or explanation (from experts and politicians) very often is: "If we (=the experts) would let everything out in the open, people would be very scared and they would panic." Personally, I have never seen this happen, but instead I have frequently seen great disappointment from citizens who afterwards have realized they have been fooled by their own experts and their own politicians...
Another misunderstanding is the use of scientific publications (as the tobacco industry did for many years) as 'weights' to balance each other. But you can NEVER balance a report showing a negative health effect with one showing nothing! This is a misunderstanding which, unfortunately, is very often used both by the industrial representatives as well as official authorities. The general audience, naturally, easily is fooled by such an argumentation, but if you are bitten by a deadly poisonous snake, what good does it make for you that there are 100 million harmless snakes around?
In many commentaries, debate articles and public lectures - for the last 20-30 years – I have urged that completely independent research projects, as well as compilations of current research data, must be inaugurated immediately to ensure our public health. These projects must be entirely independent of all types of commercial interests; public health cannot have a price-tag! It is also of paramount importance that scientists involved in such projects must be free of any carrier considerations and that the funding needed is covered to 100%, not 99% or less. This is the clear responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country. It can never be misunderstood.
WiFi systems, mobile phones, etc., are close to childrens’ beds, playrooms, school rooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. These wireless signals are being forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of WiFi systems with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited until ’the red flag’ can be hauled down once and for all.
Your work is – to say the least – of the greatest importance. You may save lives, as well as protect the general health, for now and for the future. That is what counts.
It is a great honour to communicate with you and to have your expertise aboard the international arena! GOOD LUCK!
With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle Johansson, assoc. professor
Karolinksa Institutet
Stockholm, September 11, 2012
Dear Dr. Kendall,
Thank you so much for your kind reply! No need to excuse yourself, I know very well how hard it is to cope with all incoming and outgoing mail traffic.
In addition to the review requested by you from Canada’s National Collaborating Centre on Environment and Health, please, bear the following in mind:
As public servants, it is our duty to always encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, even just single cases, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it — as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur.
You often hear about "safe levels" of exposure and that there is "no proof of health effects", but my personal response to these seemingly reassuring statements is that it is very important to realize, from a consumer's point of view, that "no accepted proof for health effects" is not the same as "no risk". Too many times, 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been: "I/we just do not know". Such fields were e.g. the DDT, X-ray, radioactivity, smoking, asbestos, BSE, heavy metal exposure, depleted uranium, etc., etc., etc., where the "no risk"-flag was raised before true knowledge came around. Later on, the same flag had to be quickly lowered, many times after enormous economic costs and suffering of many human beings. Along those lines, it is now (regarding "the protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields" issue) very important to clearly identify the background and employment (especially if they sit, at the same time, on the industry's chairs) of every 'expert' in different scientific committees, and likewise. It is, of course, very important (maybe even more important?) to also let 'whistleblowers' speak at conferences, to support them with equal amounts (or even more?) of economical funding as those scientists and other 'experts' who, already from the very beginning, have declared a certain source or type of irradiation, or a specified product, to be 100% safe – sometimes even before having properly examined them!
In the case of "protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields", it is thus of paramount importance to act from a prudence avoidance/precautionary principle point of view. Anything else would be highly hazardous! Total transparency of information is the key sentence here, I believe consumers are very tired of always having the complete truth years after a certain catastrophe already has taken place. For instance, it shall be noted, that today's recommendation values for wireless systems, the SAR-value, are just recommendations, and not safety levels, and only take into account acute thermal effects. Since scientists observe biological effects at as low as 20 microWatts/kg, is it then really safe to irradiate humans with 2 W/kg (i.e., with 100,000 times stronger radiation!), which is the recommendation level for us? And, furthermore, it is very strange to see, over and over again, that highly relevant scientific information is suppressed or even left out in various official documents, as high up as at the governmental level of society. This is not something that the consumers will gain anything good from, and, still, the official declaration or explanation (from experts and politicians) very often is: "If we (=the experts) would let everything out in the open, people would be very scared and they would panic." Personally, I have never seen this happen, but instead I have frequently seen great disappointment from citizens who afterwards have realized they have been fooled by their own experts and their own politicians...
Another misunderstanding is the use of scientific publications (as the tobacco industry did for many years) as 'weights' to balance each other. But you can NEVER balance a report showing a negative health effect with one showing nothing! This is a misunderstanding which, unfortunately, is very often used both by the industrial representatives as well as official authorities. The general audience, naturally, easily is fooled by such an argumentation, but if you are bitten by a deadly poisonous snake, what good does it make for you that there are 100 million harmless snakes around?
In many commentaries, debate articles and public lectures - for the last 20-30 years – I have urged that completely independent research projects, as well as compilations of current research data, must be inaugurated immediately to ensure our public health. These projects must be entirely independent of all types of commercial interests; public health cannot have a price-tag! It is also of paramount importance that scientists involved in such projects must be free of any carrier considerations and that the funding needed is covered to 100%, not 99% or less. This is the clear responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country. It can never be misunderstood.
WiFi systems, mobile phones, etc., are close to childrens’ beds, playrooms, school rooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. These wireless signals are being forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of WiFi systems with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited until ’the red flag’ can be hauled down once and for all.
Your work is – to say the least – of the greatest importance. You may save lives, as well as protect the general health, for now and for the future. That is what counts.
It is a great honour to communicate with you and to have your expertise aboard the international arena! GOOD LUCK!
With my very best regards
Yours sincerely
Olle Johansson, assoc. professor
The first Dr. Johansson letter is at http:ehsbc.ca/oj.html , a series of them and Dr. Kendall's reply is at http://efsbc.ca/kendall.html
ReplyDelete