This morning my interview about WiFi in one of the main newspapers in Denmark started an avalanche. Since early morning I have been contacted by journalists from radio, television, other newspapers, which all wanted an interview. The Danish Health Council is having a crisis meeting at this moment. They said that they are now thinking about what they should say. A few months ago The Health Council and the Cancer Society said in a press release that WiFi is completely harmless, since the radiation is too weak for that. Thanks to you all, there is a discussion again in Denmark.

Tonight I will be on television with a a short interview about the dangers of WiFi


Sianette Kwee
Sensommervej 16
DK-8600 Silkeborg
Denmark

--------

EU calls for urgent action on wi-fi radiation
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4263259/

--------

The Danish Health Council on WiFi

Last week the Health Council was caught sleeping and needed a week to wake up. After one week of thinking, Lis Keiding, head of the Epidemiological section in the Danish Health Council, said to the press, that the claims of the Bioinitiative report are not based on any scientific evidence. The group behind the report is known for it activities in public debate and so the report is only a biased contribution to a general debate. Therefore the Health Council will not change its standpoint that EMF radiation from cellphones, WiFi and masts does not pose a health risk.

Since 1993 the Expertpanel on EMF of the Danish Health Council, that includes Lis Keiding, has published reports on health risk of EMF. However, they systematically omitted certain subjects which they considered the risks to be negligible. Among one of the subjects omitted was damage to DNA in cells,because the panel said they had no expertise on that matter and no time to go through the material. At the time of the extensive public debate on 3G, in 2003, I was called to account by the Health Council for telling the public about the risk of RF. In my presentation I gave extensive scientific evidence for the health and biological effects of non-thermal EMF in all fields. After I finished it was very quiet for a moment, but then one of the members of the Expertpanel said “I think we have been sleeping in this panel during these years”. Nevertheless after the meeting the director of the Health Council said in his statement to the press”There are no health risks due to EMF from any source, and we have choosen to ignore the scientific evidence that shows that there are biological and health effects.” I wonder if the Expert panel has woken up now and acquired more expertise.


Sianette Kwee
Denmark

--------

Impact of Bioinitiative

The simple thing, microwave dangers are well known since 1932
(published by Dr. Schliephacke), they just can't stop lying at people. Making cash is much more important then a healthy environment. So they will happily ignore the EEA (European Environment Agency) recommendations.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-from-everyday-devices-assessed

But what would you expect by a society that still puts mercury inside peoples tooth, just because it is cheap? I do not expect anything anymore and just want to get out of this microwave oven, if just to survive the few years until the problems can't be hidden anymore.

Tom

--------

Dear Sianette,

These are some pretty explosive comments! Does everyone know about them? What about your media, have they covered these things: "Among one of the subjects omitted was damage to DNA in cells, because the panel said they had no expertise on that matter and no time to go through the material." or "I think we have been sleeping in this panel during these years”" or "There are no health risks due to EMF from any source, and we have choosen to ignore the scientific evidence that shows that there are biological and health effects.", etc., etc., etc.

P.S. I do hope it is a misquotation?! Or did actually Lis Keiding, head of the Epidemiological section in the Danish Health Council, say to the press, "that the claims of the Bioinitiative report are not based on any scientific evidence"...? What does she then call a report, written by scientists, and based on more than 2,000 peer-review-based scientific publications??? I just wonder...?!?!


Best regards

Yours Olle

(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Sianette+Kwee
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=damage+DNA
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Bioinitiative
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=non-thermal
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=microwave+dangers
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=oven
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=EEA
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Schliephake
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Johansson