Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

"Dear __________,

"I am writing on behalf of ______________, who is a member of your

organization. She informs me that you are planning to install wireless
Internet (Wi-Fi) in your building. I would respectfully recommend that
you consider not doing so for the following reasons:

"There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence of harm from

exposure to technologies such as Wi-Fi as reported by news
organizations and governmental regulatory agencies in Europe.
Officials are taking Wi-Fi networks out of libraries in Paris, out of
schools and hospitals in Salzburg Province in Austria, and out of
schools throughout England and Sweden. Lakehead University in
Thunder Bay, Ontario has chosen not to deploy Wi-Fi on its campus
("Health concerns limit wireless Internet at Lakehead University"

"The European Union voted 522 to 16 this past September (2008) to

further restrict human exposure to cell phones and cell towers. The
European Union's Environmental Agency, their equivalent of our EPA,
issued a warning to its citizens to avoid use of Wi-Fi in September of
2007, just two weeks after the release of the BioInitive Report in August of 2007. The German
government did the same only one week after the report's release.

"These and other countries around the world are already warning their
citizens about the dangers of long term exposure to low-level, non-
heating information-carrying radio waves used in wireless
communications, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi. As a result, citizen
groups, school boards, hospitals and even governmental regulatory
agencies are not waiting for further studies before taking action to
remove this influence. Some are taking the step to not deploy it in the
first place. Countries and municipalities are being proactive by
following the "precautionary principle," long honored in Europe. The
precautionary principle says that if there is evidence that a new
technology could be harmful, it is not deployed until the technology is
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be fully safe.

"In the United States, on the other hand, government allows

industry to deploy technologies that are known in private,
internal, industry-sponsored research to actually be harmful.
This is because the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect
the public from harm are headed by political appointees that favor
industry and allow deployment to happen, even when research shows
there to be harm. Once the technology is in the marketplace,
industry reaps as much profit as it can before class action
lawsuits surface and the companies are forced to pull the
technology and pay settlements. This is considered a cost of
doing business, a part of the plan. The companies have made their
profit, but at the expense of human health. This pattern has been
repeated again and again in this country.

"The American public does not yet know about the dangers of wireless
communications, at least among those that follow only mainstream
media. Why is that so? Because the corporations that own the media
reap large advertising dollars from cell phone carriers, and media
conglomerates that own networks and newspapers also have business
ties with cell phone companies and carriers. Wireless technologies are
now a multi-billion dollar industry, and cell phone and Wi-Fi
manufacturers and carriers have invested a great deal into technology
and infrastructure. They stand to lose a great deal if use of their
technologies was curtailed for any reason and vigorously fight any
attempts to do so.

"So far, the FCC and EPA have been industry-leaning. This should
change with the Obama administration because the FCC, which as of
this writing has a 3-2 Republican majority, will see a change in the
balance when the term of one of the Republican commissioners
expires and he or she is replaced with a Democrat. Time will tell if the
new appointee is less industry-leaning than his or her Republican

"Likewise, studies up until a year or two ago on the link between cell
phone use and brain (and other) and other cancers have included
subjects who have used cell phones for less than ten years. That has
allowed the cell phone trade industry and regulatory agencies to say
there is no conclusive proof that wireless technologies cause cancer
because the results were indeed inconclusive. Yet it generally takes
ten years or more for cancer to develop in the general public. Now that
cell phones have been in use for that long and studies are now being
completed that include subjects that have used them for more than
ten years, the cause and effect relationship between the use of
wireless devices and cancer is now being established in study after
study. The link is no longer equivocal.

"Furthermore, researchers in England are now seeing teenagers who

have used cell phones for more than ten years who have enough
cognitive impairment that they cannot hold a job. Swedish researchers
are seeing a five-fold increase in the risk of brain cancer in children
who use a cell phone, and they now say that if a child uses a cell
phone as the only phone in the home (which is commonplace in most
homes worldwide and in a growing number in this country), these
children stand a good chance of developing Alzheimer's Disease and
Dementia by the time they reach their thirties. Researchers are
concerned that we will have a sudden mushrooming of an epidemic of
young and middle-aged people unable to work in the prime of their life,
needing institutionalization, throughout society in twenty to thirty
years from now. When you add Wi-Fi, cordless telephones and wireless
video games to the mix, the effect is accentuated.

"For a retailer or organization such as yours to decide to not deploy Wi-

Fi in your building because this would protect your customers or
members for health reasons would take courage. You would face
resistance from members who want the convenience of the technology
and have no idea that it is unsafe. They have never heard that from
our media or our government. We should all be able to trust our
government and media to tell us the truth and protect us from harm,
but research from Europe is showing otherwise.

"Some customers or members would undoubtedly think your

organization to be unscientific and out of step with others who have
already adopted Wi-Fi. 'Everyone else is doing it,' they would think, 'so
it must be safe, and it is certainly convenient. I can get Wi-Fi wherever
I go now, so why not here?'

"What is a management that wants to be conscientious and pro-active

to do? It's a tough choice. They would really need to be convinced that
the information presented in this letter is true and then take the bold
step to decide to take the position, alone at first, that deploying this
technology presents a real, cumulative potential health risk.

"But they would have help. Newspaper articles in Europe give support
of this position. The scientific evidence exists. Organizations of
scientists, such as BioInitive Working Group and The International
Commission for Electromagnetic Safety exist to disseminate
information informing the public on the dangers of exposure to
wireless communications and EMFs (Electro-Magnetic Fields) in
general. They would need to bypass the blockade of information
perpetrated by our corporate-owned mainstream media and tell their
members what citizens in Europe already know. You can access the
many links to articles on this topic on my website, Create Healthy
Homes by clicking on the page entitled, "Cell Phone and Radio
Frequency Risks". These links represent only a few of the many articles
already available this topic, and the list is growing every week.

"I understand the predicament you are in. When I presented similar
information to the St. Louis Park, Minnesota, City Council two years
ago, the members had a difficult time looking me in the eye. They
wanted to deploy their Wi-Fi on a city-wide basis as other cities were
doing. They thought they were providing a good service to their
residents, and I understood that. They were not prepared, however, to
deal with the information I presented. One of the Council members told
me that after I first presented my information, he had checked the
website of the Minnesota Department of Health as well as that of the
World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. He informed me
and the Council that both websites said that Wireless communications,
including Wi-Fi, were safe. The Council's technical advisors echoed that

"I countered in a letter to the Council that the Minnesota Department

of Health's website had information on Wi-Fi that was taken verbatim
from the FCC's website. I presented information that scientists on an
FCC Interagency Task Force of non-thermal experts had presented
fourteen points of concern to the heads of the FCC that they felt
needed to be addressed before the agency's guidelines could be
deemed credible and protective of the public. Nothing was done with
these concerns.

"Likewise there is evidence that the World Health Organization in

Geneva had as head of its EMF standards-setting committee a man
who was known to be pro-industry. This was revealed in a report on
Microwave News , where it
was reported by insiders that that individual had held a secret meeting
in October 2005 with electric utility representatives to update the
official EMF-exposure guidelines from the WHO. That meeting was held
without the presence of or any input from any others with views
counter to those of industry. Thus, I reasoned to the City Council, the
word of the WHO could not fully be trusted to be protective of the

"This is all detailed in a copy of my letter to the St. Louis Park City
Council, available on my website at Wi-Fi Report

"Again, organizations and businesses in this country have a tough

choice to make when it comes to controversial health issues such as
this, particularly because awareness of the health effects of wireless
technologies is simply not yet widespread on this side of the Atlantic.
Watchdogs in Europe, however, where industry does not have the
same control of media and government as it does here, are bringing
knowledge of the danger of these technologies to the public, and
governments there are now taking steps to be protect the public.
"That will happen in this country, too. In fact, a frank and open
discussion of the dangers of cell phone and Wi-Fi use is already
beginning. Not only is the University of Albany the first American
institution to lend its name to a study, the BioInitive Report , that challenges the view that cell phones
are safe, Dr. Ronald Herberman of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer
Institute is now warning of the dangers of these technologies. Dr.
Herbermann appeared at Congressional Hearings last September
(2008), to testify on this issue. Larry King had Dr. Herberman and
others on his CNN television show last autumn to openly discuss the
health risks of wireless technologies.

"An organization such as yours has the potential to be ahead of the

curve on this issue and to be a leader. Education of the public is
essential. It is by efforts by people such as yourself and your member
(my client) that this issue can be brought to the public's attention.
That, in turn, can raise awareness of the harms of wireless
technologies among those whose job it is to protect the public from
technologies that are proving to be harmful, regardless of what
industry and regulatory agencies say.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 at

bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00006: it does not mandate the utilities to install
smart meters in homes. It only mandates the utilities to "offer"
them and to install them "upon customer request. So, if any of
you hear the same statements that the meters are mandatory, just
quote the above from the Energy Policy Act. The installation is NOT
mandatory. It should only be installed “upon customer request.” You
are the customer and you do not request them. You refuse them!

Respectfully submitted,

Oram Miller, BBEI

Certified Building Biology Environmental Inspector

Environmental Design and Inspection Services Tele: 310 720-7686