Outrage..
By Una St.Clair-Moniz
Executive Director
Citizens for Empowering the public to protect children
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
[mailto:dsnoble@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:15 To: Honourable Tony Clement; Honourable Leona Aglukkaq; Suzanne
Vinet; Susan Fletcher; Morris Rosenberg; Carolina Giliberti; Beth Pieterson;
AtamaA@parl.gc.ca; Keith Martin-Ottawa; Keith Martin -Riding; G. Kennedy; D.
Coderre; A. Mendes; T. Mulcair; P. Brown; C. Bennett; Luc Malo; C. Carrie; T.
Uppal; N. Dufour; K. Duncan; J. Smith; J. Murray; P. Davidson; C. Hughes; S.
Cardin; Megan Leslie
Cc: Dr. Magda Havas; Dr. Olle Johansson; Dr. Dimitri Panagopoulos; Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy; Dr. Annie Sasco
Where is the outrage when a prominent researcher for the BC
and Canadian Cancer Society has admitted to allowing herself to be
misrepresented as having a PhD for more than 14 years? Why aren't people
demanding a review of her work and the decisions to which she has contributed?
If she has been dishonest about her credentials isn't it likely she has been
dishonest in her work?
Mary McBride has participated in many important panels and
studies which affect us all. She was named to the prestigious Royal Society of
Canada and participated in the review of Safety Code 6, for
Health Canada,
approving the extremely high amounts of radiation we can be exposed to by cell
phones, transmitters, etc.
She participated in development of Industry Canada's
Antenna Policy, determining that transmitters could be placed near homes,
schools and hospitals, and that the public need not be informed.
She was a
member of the team working on the Interphone Study which, according to most
scientists, was a poorly done, using faulty assumptions and unrealistic
parameters. I am sure there have been more, through the Cancer Society of which
I am not aware.
This is the same Mary McBride, while working at the BC
Cancer Centre with children, who reassured concerned parents that cell
transmitters on schools were safe. She said this while being fully aware of many studies done by independent scientists showing radiation from these transmitters
pose serious health threats, especially to children.
Why aren't people demanding that these studies and their
results be reviewed? If one person with questionable integrity participated,
perhaps others did. In fact, many involved in these important decisions have
direct ties to the telecommunication industries -- receiving funding both
directly and indirectly. If due diligence was neglected in selecting
researchers, confirming educational qualifications and ensuring no conflict of
interests, aren't the results highly questionable? Why do these very same
individuals work together on panels and studies relating to wireless devices,
over and over again? Could it be because they keep coming up with the same
results, the same results the corporations want?
Where are the investigative journalists who should be
looking into this, who would have in years gone by? Are corporate interests at
work here as well?
The lack of outcry over this deception seems to be a sad
commentary on our current society. We've grown accustomed to people misleading
us, to products making us sick, to our governments not protecting us. As a
consequence we've stopped being shocked or angry when we learn that our water is
no longer fit to drink, our air is filled with carcinogens, and our homes are
radiated by transmitters.
This apathy is what the corporations depend on -- and we get
what we deserve.
Researchers who lie to us, often in return for research dollars
spent on providing results the corporations want. Being told that we need
devices like WiFi and cellphones even though the corporations know the inherent
dangers, and even though there is safe technology that would do the same job but
it costs the corporations more in infrastructure. And, don't forget, our
governmental agencies which depend on corporate financing, such as licensing
fees from telecommunication companies which amount to billions of dollars a
year.
Health Canada will assure everyone that their guidelines are adequate to
protect us, even though they are among the worst in the world, and despite
thousands of studies showing otherwise rather than risk this
income.
Without outrage what kind of world are we leaving for our
children and our grandchildren?
No comments:
Post a Comment