My Response to Jean Heches Attack on the WHO/IARC petition to move RF from Class 2b to Class1

My Response to Jean Heches Attack on the WHO/IARC petition to move RF from Class 2b to Class1

Hi Jean,

My name is Liz Barris.  I posted the WHO/IARC petition to move RF radiation from Class 2b into Class1.  I am going to address your email against this petition one step at a time.

1) I was not at all trying to hide my name when I wrote Liz B., I just didn't think the name was that important - I felt the material written in the petition to be more important than the name on the petition, which is why I just put an initial.  But no, I am not trying to hide anything at all and in fact and glad that I put that petition out and was wondering why no one had done that until now.

2) I actually created that petition on behalf of and at the request of an electrosensitive friend of mine who is too ill to sit in front of her computer. Her name is Selisha Neilson and she contacted both by phone and email, Dr. Lennart Hardell to discuss it with him prior to my posting it.  She asked him specific questions which were relevant to the petition and then sent me links, etc.  Just to be clear, I did not speak or email with Dr. Hardell, I only worked from Selisha's interactions with him and the quotes and links she sent me.  I paid tribute to Selisha for coming up with this idea when I posted it in my news letter as I had been thinking of doing one for a while on this subject of the RF classification, but thanks to Selisha's constant prodding of me every week, I finally got it together and published it. 

3) If you really have a problem with requesting this radiation be moved from class 2b into Class1, I suggest you take this issue up directly with Dr. Lennart Hardell.  Here is one of the quotes from him that I received from Selisha...

from:		Sharon Nielson <ssnielson@sbcglobal.net>
reply-to:		Sharon Nielson <ssnielson@sbcglobal.net>
to:		"mandatoryussmartgridblock@gmail.com" <mandatoryussmartgridblock@gmail.com>
date:		Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:33 AM
subject:		Group 1 carcinogen urging by Lennart Hardell

Hi Liz,

here attached is the paper from 2013 from Lennart Hardell along with a link to it here at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192496

“Glioma and acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones. According to the IARC Preamble (54), the classification should be group 1, i.e., “the agent is carcinogenic to humans,” and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed…Because of the widespread use of wireless technology, even a small risk increase would have serious public consequences.”

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Phd, oncologist 

Corporate Interference with Science & Health conference, New York City, March 13, 14 2013

4) Your claim that this petition will damage our movement is absolutely preposterous.  Were the petition were to gather enough signatures, it could potentially influence people in higher places to put this from 2b into 1 since as we are all painfully aware, this is a political issue rather than purely science based.

4) I do not care at all if you think it is naive or unrealistic that IARC will reclassify the radiation, nor do I care that your opinion is that no petition on this should be published.  You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.  You say: "Taking action for an unrealistic campaign allows to make diversion. And then, the civil society do not face the real issue."  So please, tell us what the real issue is and if you do not wish to create a petition about what the real issue is, then perhaps you have another suggestion as to what to do about the real issue?  I have my own ideas about what the real issue is and they may be different than yours.  My idea about what the real issue is, based on my experience on this issue as a victim of this radiation, researcher, political activist and someone who has been working on creating my own film on this issue for the passed 7 years, is that is the science behind this issue is almost 100% political - and when I say political, I mean financial...that the financial vested interests are constantly controlling this information and pushing it down.  Were it not for that, this radiation may have already been in class 1.  Again, although Dr. Hardell did not write the petition, Selisha sent me quotes from his articles and studies, and it is based on his work, so I would suggest you broaching this subject with him directly.  Petitions like this have the potential to help sway the powers that be into realizing there is a groundswell movement amongst the public and they have had it with the monkey-ing around with the science and maybe a petition might help create more of what is needed to get this into Class 1.  Also,  just so you know, Dr. Hardell is not alone as a scientist in his view that this should be moved from possible human carcinogen to human carcinogen.  I am told that the 2b was merely to put off lawsuits because it is much more difficult to get a conviction on class 2b than class 1.  Regardless of if petitions are the catalyst for change or merely raise awareness to an issue, they DO do something and are actually legal grounds for redress in my  own country of the US which is why I am so keen on them.

5) As you stated in your own words in your email, IARC wrote the classification, so IARC can also re-classify and is the correct agency to do so.  Therefor they are the correct agency to address in the petition.  If IARC is under the umbrella of WHO, who worked to discredit the class 2b classification, then they are also the correct party to name in the petition.  You have attacked the petition and also myself, the author of the petition, yet you do not offer any other constructive solutions or even any re-wording of the petition.  I selected Avaaz not only because it is a global community and this is a global petition, but also because Avaaz's platform allows for re-working of petitions even after they have been released.  So if you have a re-wording suggestion, kindly send it along and I would be happy to consider incorporating it, if it is along the lines of what we are after.  If it is not, perhaps you should start your own petition and send it out.  But I would like to request you stop attacking this one as it damages not only you personally in the eyes of those around the world working on this issue, but also and more importantly, what we are trying to accomplish.

6) You wrote..."This AVAAZ campaign will cast doubt  about the 2B IARC classification in the public opinion...The AVAAZ community campaign will probably participate to decrease the problem."  I could not DISAGREE with you more.  If any "doubt" is cast on the classification due to the petition, it will be doubt in favor of the question "Why is this radiation not in Class 1 or even 2a as opposed to 2b?"  Your insinuation that it would cast doubt that it perhaps not be classified at all is absurd.

7) Your reaction to this petition not only baffles me, but deeply disappoints me.  I did see your film and felt it had a lot of valuable information in it, but the maturity I saw portrayed in it by you the filmmaker is not what I am reading here in your email.  You could have easily asked to get in touch with the creator of the petition - me, and asked that I change a word or two, but you did not do that.  Agnes clearly wrote my name as well as my organization in her email in her quest to garner more signatures for the petition.  I am not out of reach of anyone and you could have asked Agnes for my contact info to discuss the petition.  But instead, you chose to attack the petition and also attack me personally, yet in all your attacks and denigration of this petition, you have not offered any suggested changes, which leads me to actually question the motives of your attack on this petition.  Are you really interested in doing good or just destroying someone else's attempt at doing good because you have your own ideas on this issue?   I have no problem entertaining others ideas or getting behind others actions and ideas if they are different than mine, as long as they have a goal that I support.  You have not stated any alternatives to anything in the petition and therefor again, I question your motives in attacking this petition.

8) It is my opinion that attitudes and behaviors like yours actually do much more damage to this movement than petitions that are designed to bring attention to a subject and help create change.  Fellow activists attacking other activists and even scientists attacking other scientists, or scientists attacking activists or vice versa, etc., etc, has unnecessarily plagued this movement since its inception.  Although I am disappointed in your email, I guess I should not be surprised at this point.  I have seen some extremely well respected people - both scientist and activists, attacked by "their own side" time and time again and all I can say is that this is the exact  kind of behavior that actually DOES damage our movement. 

9) If you would like to offer suggested language changes to this petition, please feel free to forward it to me, or you can even call me if you wish, 310-455-7530.  If you do not have any suggested changes, then I request you stop trying to damage the petition and perhaps direct your efforts to something more productive, such as maybe working on a sequel to your highly informative EMF film or other such powerful endeavors.

Kind regards,

Liz, 

sent from my HARD WIRED internet connection