Science Is No Longer Truth: Death of Democracy and Knowledge By Dr. Mercola

Science Is No Longer Truth: Death of Democracy and Knowledge

August 25, 2015 | 17,859 views

By Dr. Mercola

You’ve probably heard of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. One of the most widely used herbicides in the world, in the US it’s used most often on genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready crops.

The chemical can be sprayed directly onto the GM crops, which are modified to withstand it, while other living plants in the vicinity wither and die.

What may come as a surprise is the fact that Roundup isn’t only used by farmers growing GM crops (not that that’s a small group – Roundup Ready soybeans make up 94 percent of US soybean acreage, for instance).1

The federal government and US state land managers also count themselves among Monsanto’s clients, as glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – is the “weapon of choice for battling all sorts of invaders.”2

As noted in a Harper’s Magazine expose, a 2014 study by the California Invasive Plant Council revealed that more than 90 percent of the state’s land managers used the compound.3

On what, exactly? The fight against non-native and “invasive” plants – a fight that is itself mired in controversy because many non-native plants are actually beneficial and some have been around for centuries…

US Government Spends $1 Billion a Year on Glyphosate and Other Chemicals to Kill Off Plants

According to Harper’s, Last year, the federal government spent more than $2 billion to fight the alien invasion, up to half of which was budgeted for glyphosate and other poisons.4

This includes the eucalyptus tree in California, which was brought from Australia during Victorian times, the Monterey cypress, and more than 450,000 other trees in the Oakland/Berkeley area of the state that are slated to be destroyed for “wildfire-risk reduction.”

The federal government even describes invasive species as one of the most serious threats to the environment yet, as Harper’s explained:5

Defining ‘native’ and ‘invasive’ in an ever-shifting natural world poses some problems. The camel, after all, is native to North America, though it went extinct here 8,000 years ago, while the sacrosanct redwood tree is invasive, having snuck in at some point in the past 65 million years.

The National Invasive Species Council defines the enemy as ‘an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.’

But the late, great evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould dismissed such notions as ‘romantic drivel.’

Natives, he wrote, are simply ‘those organisms that first happened to gain and keep a footing,’ and he ridiculed the suggestion that early arrivals ‘learn to live in ecological harmony with [their] surroundings, while later interlopers tend to be exploiters.’”

The “invasive” eucalyptus tree, for instance, was planted by the hundreds of thousands in the 1870s, as it was renowned for its grace and appearance. The tree can withstand fires and irrigates soil by absorbing moisture from fog through its leaves and funneling it through its roots, which sounds more like an environmental benefit than a threat…

Residents Outraged by New York’s Plan to Destroy 200-Acre Reed Marsh

Phragmites, or the common reed, is accused of crowding out plants, fish, and wildlife to the extent that, in Delaware, glyphosate is sprayed and re-sprayed annually on a 6,700-acre area of the Delaware River estuary.

In 2013, residents of Piermont, New York also learned of the state’s plans to douse a 200-acre reed marsh with glyphosate – a natural area residents said they loved and viewed as a “beautiful… living environment with lots of wildlife.”

The state had planned to use heavy spraying of glyphosate, despite the fact that the marsh sat next to two playgrounds. And these are but two examples. As Harper’s continued:6

Many states maintain invasive-plant councils (and sometimes exotic-pest-plant councils) to monitor and eradicate alien invaders. Last year, the North Carolina Invasive Plant Council gave its annual Certificate of Excellence to two forest rangers who had detected a small patch of cogon grass.

This was an invasive unwittingly imported from Asia in packing crates, which the Vietnamese call ‘American weed,’ because it spread on land defoliated by Agent Orange.

As it happens, an erstwhile supplier of Agent Orange, the Monsanto Company, also manufactures America’s most popular remedy for cogon grass: glyphosate… Discussing Phragmites australis, the reed found in wetlands throughout the country, Massachusetts conservation officials similarly tout this ‘effective’ weed killer.

Pennsylvania urges glyphosate’s deployment against purple loosestrife, while Illinois recommends it for Japanese knotweed. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries prescribes it for cogon grass but warns that ‘multiple applications for full control’ may be required.”

How the Fight Against ‘Invasive’ Plants Came to Fully Support the Introduction of GMOs

It might seem strange, first, that non-native plants showing environmental benefits – such as soil remediation and protection against erosion – are considered such an imminent threat. Harper’s noted:7

“David Theodoropoulos, a California naturalist, seed merchant, and the author of Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience, is blunt about what he sees as a deadly inversion of environmental priorities.

‘Thirty years ago,’ he told me, ‘the greatest threats to nature were chain saws, bulldozers, and poisons. Now the greatest threats are wild plants and animals. And what do we use to fight them? Chain saws, bulldozers, and poisons. Who does this serve?’”

Stranger, still, is the fact that the US embraces the use of GM crops – which are clearly not natural – while denouncing decidedly more natural non-native plants. It wasn’t always this way, but in the 1990s a Biodiversity and Ecosystems Panel was established to consider the emerging threat of invasive species.

At its helm was Peter Raven, the director of the Missouri Botanical Garden who quickly became the most powerful botanist in America.

While spreading views that accelerating extinction of plant and animal species meant we were past the point of preserving the world’s sustainability, he also stressed a need for biodiversity while blaming (diverse) invasive species and human activities for the ongoing “extinction event.”

But there was one silver lining to the dark clouds – genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which Raven fully supported and endorsed. According to Harper’s:8

“…Raven (who retired in 2010) and Monsanto were close, both geographically and financially. The Missouri Botanical Garden was located just a few miles from Monsanto headquarters in St. Louis, and it owed much of its explosive growth to the beneficence of the corporation, which was in the process of changing its public identity from a chemical manufacturer and purveyor of Agent Orange to a ‘life sciences company’ — one heavily invested in GMOs.

In April 1996, Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro joined Raven to break ground for the Monsanto Center, a four-story structure designed to house the garden’s unique collection of botanical books and dried plants. Monsanto had contributed $2 million toward the center’s construction, and had also donated the land and $50 million for the Danforth Plant Science Center, another GMO-intensive research facility.

‘Monsanto loved Raven,’ a former senior executive at the company told me. ‘They were always showing off the Missouri Botanical Garden, bringing important visitors down to meet him, having him give tours, talks. He was definitely our showpiece.’

For his part, Raven spoke publicly about the virtues of GMOs. The company’s grand scheme was to genetically modify crops — particularly corn, soybeans, and cotton — to render them immune to the glyphosate in Roundup. This would allow farmers to spray weeds without killing the crops.

… I asked Raven whether his efforts to protect the natural world didn’t clash in some way with his support for something very unnatural: GMO technology. ‘What’s natural anymore?’ he replied. ‘If we’re going to play God, we might as well be good at it.’”

As acceptance of GMOs grew, so too did the fight against invasive species. Soon the National Invasive Species Council was created, and a founding member included Nelroy E. Jackson, a weed scientist and product-development manager at Monsanto who, according to Harper’s, “had helped to develop Roundup formulations specifically for “habitat-restoration markets” — that is, for eradicating invasives.”

GMO Crops Drown Out Diversity

Ironically, but not surprisingly, Monsanto’s GM crops didn’t turn out to be a boon for diversity. Instead, monoculture (or monocropping) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. Monoculture is at the heart of GMOs, and it destroys biodiversity. Pests are becoming resistant to the plants engineered to produce their own pesticides, while beneficial insects such as honeybees and Monarch butterflies suffer collateral damage from the copious amounts of glyphosate sprayed.

Weeds are rapidly developing resistance to the herbicide, and superweeds – like the native horseweed, which was once prized for its medicinal properties and now grows up to eight feet tall and is impervious to glyphosate – are spreading. Not to mention, it’s now known that glyphosate promotes cancer.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that glyphosate is a Class 2A “probable human carcinogen,” and internal Monsanto documents revealed they knew over 30 years ago that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats they’ve studied.

And adding even more insult to injury, many farmers are now spraying glyphosate not just on GM crops but also on non-GM crops, simply to kill off the fields and produce early harvests. Harper’s reported:9

“‘You can imagine the residue levels on the damn wheat,’ said Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist at Washington State University. ‘If you buy whole-wheat bread, the glyphosate will be ground up with the whole-wheat kernel and it will be part of the flour. It’s a very high exposure. When they make white flour, the bran gets separated out and is used in the food supply in other places. That bran will have three or four times the concentration of glyphosate, because that’s where the residues are lodged. It’s insanity.’”

DuPont Knew Health Risks of PFOA but Kept Making It Anyway

It’s not only non-native plants, GMOs, and glyphosate that are intertwined in a deceptive, health-harming web. PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid (also called C8), was an essential ingredient in DuPont’s non-stick cookware for decades. It’s since been used in hundreds of other products, from microwave popcorn bags and fast-food wrappers to pizza boxes and waterproof clothing. The chemical is now the subject of about 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont, the first of which are scheduled for September 2015.

The legal process has uncovered hundreds of internal documents revealing that DuPont knew of the chemicals danger to the public and employees, yet continued using it, despite the known risks. In fact, 10 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined DuPont $16.5 million for withholding decades’ worth of information about health hazards associated with PFOA. As noted in a report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG):10

“DuPont had long known that PFOA caused cancer, had poisoned drinking water in the mid-Ohio River Valley, and polluted the blood of people and animals worldwide. But it never told its workers, local officials and residents, state regulators, or the EPA.”

At the time, that fine was the largest the EPA had ever assessed, but it was still too small to act as a deterrent. In 2005, a panel of three scientists was ordered as part of a settlement in order to determine the chemical’s effects on people. After seven years of research, the panel linked PFOA to ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, and kidney cancer. Its health effects were deemed to be widespread and occurred even at very low exposure levels. As reported by The Intercept:11

“Another revelation about C8 makes all of this more disturbing and gives the upcoming trials… global significance: This deadly chemical that DuPont continued to use well after it knew it was linked to health problems is now practically everywhere. A man-made compound that didn’t exist a century ago, C8 is in the blood of 99.7 percent of Americans, according to a 2007 analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control, as well as in newborn human babies, breast milk, and umbilical cord blood.

A growing group of scientists have been tracking the chemical’s spread through the environment, documenting its presence in a wide range of wildlife, including Loggerhead sea turtles, bottlenose dolphins, harbor seals, polar bears, caribou, walruses, bald eagles, lions, tigers, and arctic birds.

Although DuPont no longer uses C8, fully removing the chemical from all the bodies of water and bloodstreams it pollutes is now impossible. And, because it is so chemically stable — in fact, as far as scientists can determine, it never breaks down — C8 is expected to remain on the planet well after humans are gone from it.”

PFOA Dubbed the ‘Tobacco of the Chemical Industry’

DuPont, along with seven other companies, including 3M, were involved in producing PFOA over the decades. The chemical is being called the “tobacco of the chemical industry” because of the decades-long corporate cover-up of its health effects, the lawsuits pending, and how difficult it is to make companies accountable for producing disease-causing products, even after the evidence is clear. In DuPont’s case, they had animal evidence of harm – from liver toxicity and kidney damage to death – for decades, but the company did not alert regulators of a potential problem.

Then there were the company’s workers, some of whom gave birth to babies with birth defects after working in the company’s PFOA division. DuPont knew of the problems and was tracking its workers for such health effects, but again failed to inform regulators of their findings.

Worse still, when 3M submitted a troublesome rat study to the EPA suggesting harm, DuPont told the EPA they believed the study was flawed. While continuing to study the chemical’s effects on its workers, DuPont was also tracking the chemical’s spread into nearby waterways, as well as its emissions into the air through smokestacks.

At first DuPont disposed of PFOA by dumping it in the ocean and later moved to disposing of it in unlined landfills and ponds. They knew the chemical was spreading widely into the environment and convened a meeting to discuss what to do about it… but decided to keep using the chemical anyway. According to The Intercept:12

“ … [F]rom that point on, DuPont increased its use and emissions of the chemical… the plant put an estimated 19,000 pounds of C8 into the air in 1984, the year of the meeting. By 1999, the peak of its air emissions, the West Virginia plant put some 87,000 pounds of C8 into local air and water. That same year, the company emitted more than 25,000 pounds of the chemical into the air and water around its New Jersey plant…

Essentially, DuPont decided to double-down on C8, betting that somewhere down the line the company would somehow be able to ‘eliminate all C8 emissions in a way yet to be developed that would not economically penalize the bussiness [sic]’… The executives, while conscious of probable future liability, did not act with great urgency about the potential legal predicament they faced. If they did decide to reduce emissions or stop using the chemical altogether, they still couldn’t undo the years of damage already done. As the meeting summary noted, ‘We are already liable for the past 32 years of operation.’”

When Science Is No Longer the Truth…

Our society is largely built on the idea that science can help us make good, solid decisions. But now we’re facing a world so rife with problems caused by the very sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and productive, it’s quite clear that we’re heading toward more than one proverbial brick wall. In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now see that the preferred business model of an industry was created first, followed by “scientific evidence” that supports the established business model.

When the science doesn’t support the company’s economic gains, it’s swept under the rug, even if people are dying and the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well as the lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in their favor. Conflicts of interest have become the norm within virtually all fields of science, which creates a completely unworkable – and dangerous – situation in the long run.

If you’re interested in learning more, I suggest reading the Harper’s and Intercept stories in their entireties. These are but two examples of what happens when science is no longer truth and corporate interests instead dictate the future health of the planet and its population. The first step toward change is awareness that there’s a problem…

R.I. PRESS RELEASE: Engineering Expert to Rhode Island Governor’s Disability Board, “Wireless Is Not Sustainable”

August 24, 2015                                                                                          CONTACT: Patricia Burke

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                       

          Engineering Expert to Rhode Island Governor’s Disability Board, “Wireless Is Not Sustainable”

The Rhode Island Governor’s Commission on Disabilities forum in N. Kingston featured testimony from individuals experiencing discrimination as the result of health conditions related to wireless radio frequency exposures. The unprecedented hearing was scheduled in a Wi-Fi free setting in an attempt to provide accommodation for electromagnetic hypersensitive residents. Testifiers explained that they are being denied access to every aspect of society, including education, employment, health care, religion, transportation, and safe housing. Citizens reported that requests for assistance have fallen on deaf ears in RI.

In 2002, the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board stated, “multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” Cell phones and antennas, cordless phones, wireless computers, unshielded transformers and wiring, security scanners, and other devices can make a building inaccessible. Wireless utility meters pose and additional threat to the electro-sensitive population.

Utility expert Sam Parrish testified, “Wireless networking is not a sustainable technology for many reasons including cyber security and adverse health effects. “Wi-Fi” has already begun to be rolled-back and removed from installations in schools and public facilities globally. Conventional wired networks are exceedingly more secure and appropriate for the majority of municipal government and public infrastructure.”

Camilla Rees of Electromagnetic summarized international concern regarding the inadequacy of US exposure guidelines. Retired law professor Judy Jackson quoted Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, stating, “Inaccessibility and discrimination are prohibited by law. Thus, it is not alright to deliberately make EHS persons’ symptoms worse.”  Representatives from Citizens for Safe Technology and Worcester Opts Out also addressed the panel, reporting harm and discrimination, including being characterized as tin foil hats. Patricia Burke of Worcester Opts Out told the panel, “The name-calling and ridicule will continue until we as a society decide to act.”

Cecelia Doucette shared “Best Practices” developed by the Ashland MA school system in response to concern about Wi-Fi exposures, and submitted a report on the FCC by Norm Elster published by the Harvard Center for Ethics. “The FCC has ignored the growing evidence that wireless technologies pose serious health risks.”

Peggy Patton of presented testimony submitted to the FCC in 2013 by the City of Boston, “The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity” as a cognizable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After more than a decade, that investigation remains unopened. The dockets here have been updated with massive additional evidence of the crippling effects of RF radiation on an admitted minority – but a suffering minority – of U.S. citizens.”

A teacher, several parents, and RI residents who practice prudent avoidance to protect their health joined experts in calling on the RI Disabilities Board to examine emerging evidence of harm and to take action.

Sweden recognizes EHS as a functional impairment and provides essential services, and court cases in France and Italy have recognized damage from wireless exposure. A federal ADA lawsuit has been filed against the Fay School, a private school in Southborough, MA for failure to accommodate an EHS student.

IEMFA notice: Ex-WHO General-Director: Wireless Technology Has Negative Health Effects.

IEMFA notice: Ex-WHO General-Director: Wireless Technology Has Negative Health Effects.

From the IEMFA, 20 August 2015:

Ex-WHO General-Director and Ex-Prime Minister of Norway: Wireless Technology Has Negative Health Effects. There Is No Doubt.

On Friday the 14th of August 2015, retired WHO General-Director and Prime Minister of Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, was interviewed by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten*. One of the issues raised in the interview was her current thoughts on wireless radiation. Her statement was crystal clear. Watch the relevant clip from the interview here, subtitled in English by Citizens’ Radiation Protection, Norway. We are grateful to Gro, for her clear and honest response.

Translated from German article:—Min-kropp-har-reagert-pa-mobilstraling-i-25-ar-8125147.html

Brundtland:-my body has responded to mobile radiation in 25 years

ARENDAL (Aftenposten) Gro Harlem Brundtland spoke out about the Norwegian campaign, the time as Norway’s first female Prime Minister and her concern about radiation from mobile phones.

You can see the full debriefing of Norway’s former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in the window at the top of the article.

The broadcast was recorded on the sailing vessel “Boy Leslie”, which is docked by Pollen in Arendal. Forward to Tuesday’s annual policy Conference held in the southern Arendalsuka city.

In the debriefing told Brundtland, who is the former director general of the World Health Organization, among other things, about his skepticism about the radiation from mobile phones.

-I would say: screen you. Do not go with your phone in your pocket, said Brundtland.

Get a headache of mobile use

She even uses mobile phone at least possible and is keen to keep the phone away from the head if she had to, for example, send a text message.

-I may not have the mobile jets up here. When do I get instant headache. My body has responded to mobile radiation in 25 years, said Brundtland.

The former Norwegian Prime Minister believes the research results show that there is no doubt that there are negative aspects of the waves that hit people because of cell phones and other technological devices.

An expert selection set down by the Norwegian authorities concluded in 2013 with that it is not a coating to say that radiation from mobile phones, wireless networks and mobile masts are harmful or can give health problems.

-Was someone’s bitch and .. .. .telling

Brundtland was Norway’s first female Prime Minister. Even the post’s political editor Trine Eilertsen wanted to know what she thought about that seemed about that country again has gotten a woman as Prime Minister.

-It is important that this is not a one-time phenomenon. That this could happen again is interesting and important. It spreads the attitudes among young people what they are seeing and experiencing, points out the Brundtland.

-Many of the times I was someone’s bitch, .. .. .telling and prone to kampanjelignende outcomes, especially before the election, I thought: Heal, this must you endure.

Listen Heal tell about this in the video clip at the top.

Solberg has not experienced the same

Brundtland told that the mother often stile questions about how she kept out all the criticism she’s had to go through because she as a woman had climbed all the way to the top in politics.

-Then I said-the next time a woman becomes the Prime Minister it will be different. I think we see now. She who is Prime Minister now have not had so many attacks that are gender-based. I’m glad for, says eksstatsministeren.

-Today’s politicians do not get peace

Brundtland mean this year’s election campaign has many similarities with Norwegian politics it was when sllik she was Prime Minister, but that there are also differences.

-The media is even more on in all the time than that they were at least in the first part of my time. Now it’s social media and one with the second all the time. Those poor people get the not peace!

76-year-old revealed that she herself has not thrown out in the world of social media, but that she uses e-mail and word processing programs such as word.

Will asked Clinton at the cabin

Gro Harlem Brundtland was Prime Minister for the labour party in three periods: in 1981, 1986-89 and 1990-1996.

She is currently the Deputy Chair of the United Nations Council “The Elders”. In that regard, Brundtland visited Russia recently where she met president Vladimir Putin.

-He was well prepared, in a good mood and behaved in a way that was more trusted than we had expected, said Brundtland.

Despite the disagreement in the sight of Ukraine-the conflict said Brundtland that she perceived Putin as a knowledgeable politician. But on the question of who of top leaders she had met she could at any time going out to invited with at the cottage, black Brundtland cash:

-Bill Clinton.

The reason given was that Clinton was raised in humble beginnings and that she could see he therefore for them that he would come to terms with the hyttas standard.

Out Island sitting in the

Stanghelle and Eilertsen also asked out about the international Brundtland terror challenge and what happened on the island 22. July 2011. Brundtland gave a talk on AUF-camp and left the island just before the massacre that day.

In the summer, was back on the island, Brundtland Out on the first summer since AUFs camp terrorist action.

-It was in many ways a relief to be back. At the time, so I all the young faces in front of with when I left, and when evening came, many gone. It’s very hard in, told Brundtland.

-But to see them now, and see that there are many new children to the island was a relief for me, “she added.

Current guest every night

Even the commentators Trine Eilertsen and Harald Stanghelle ask out a topical guest to debate every night Thursday through Sunday under the Arendalsuka.

Thursday night was the Ap Tajik that Assistant Manager first guest as Hadia was grilled. She røpte among other things, the secret of a maker she received after the crash during a reportasjebilen sommerivkariat in Aftenposten, 14 years ago.

Interested in the issues of the election campaign? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and listen to our podcast here.

National Grid, Eversource take a big step toward modernizing the electric grid (AT THE CUSTOMERS EXPENSE)

The Boston Globe

National Grid, Eversource take a big step toward modernizing the electric grid

By Jon Chesto Globe Staff  August 19, 2015

The way we communicate by phone has changed dramatically in the past three decades. The way we get electricity? Not so much.

Change could finally be coming, though, under electricity grid modernization plans that National Grid and Eversource Energy filed on Wednesday with the state Department of Public Utilities.

Continue reading below

 One of the main goals of the utilities’ plans is to encourage the installation of “smart meters” at homes across the state. These devices, among other things, allow consumers to reduce electric bills by using power at off-peak times and alert utilities quickly to outages.

The filings are in response to a request from the DPU last year, under then-Governor Deval Patrick. One of the larger policy goals is to create a more efficient grid, one that presumably need less electricity to operate, and potentially a more reliable one.

But all these fancy devices won’t be free. Eversource said its plans could cost between $67 million and $120 million over the course of five years, while National Grid’s proposed costs range from $225 million and $830 million for the same time period.

The exact cost would depend on which option gets picked by state regulators. For example, National Grid’s most expensive plan would install smart meters at all customer locations in its service area, except for those who voluntarily opt out of the installation, while the least expensive plan would only install smart meters at homes of consumers who sign up for the program on their own initiative.

National Grid estimates that its programs could increase the typical residential customer’s monthly electric bill by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent for the five-year period, depending on the option that’s picked by state officials.

A spokesman for Eversource, meanwhile, said its plans could raise the typical residential bill by 0.2 to 0.4 percent, adding 20 to 40 cents to a $100 monthly bill.

Jon Chesto can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @jonchesto.

French judgment forcing La Maison Départementale des Personnes en Situation de Handicap (MDPSH) to pay an electrohypersensitive person compensation

N.B. French judgment forcing La Maison Départementale des Personnes en Situation de Handicap (MDPSH) to pay an electrohypersensitive person compensation!topic/electromagnetic_radiation_victims/ZXgdogoqvRg


A second EHS compensated by a French court

The first case dates back to July 2014 according to Le Figaro

André Fauteux, éditeur
Please, see this sensational news (with photos – down below – of the actual verdict papers) from Ms Marine Richard in France! (I hereby send her my warmest congratulations!)Hi

Here is the decision of the French Court about my case : as far as I know, it is the first time in France that a court recognizes EHS as a handicap.

Please tell EHS people from your country that they have to do the same everywhere ! Together we will win, in the end.

With my very warm regards and with all my gratitude for the support and help I received during this 3 years journey 🙂

Marine Richard

Bonjour, vous trouverez ci-joint la décision du tribunal du Contentieux de l’incapacité de Toulouse (France) en ma faveur, reconnaissant (pour la première fois à ma connaissance en France) le droit à une allocation pour le handicap “électrosensibilité”.

Pour les références complètes du jugement afin d’utiliser cette jurisprudence, merci de me contacter directement.

N’hésitez pas à faire connaître cette décision, elle est là pour l’usage de tous !

Mes sincères remerciements à toutes les personnes qui ont contribué à rendre cette décision possible par leur soutien et/ou leurs témoignages.

En espérant que cela donnera le courage et l’espoir à d’autres personnes électrosensibles de se battre pour une vie digne, fraternellement,

Marine Richard

LINK TO SUBMISSION:!topic/electromagnetic_radiation_victims/ZXgdogoqvRg

More Corruption at the Arizona Corporation Commission Information

More Corruption at the Arizona Corporation Commission Information & Perspective by Warren Woodward Sedona, Arizona ~ August 24, 2015

Two stories today. One is several days old but just in case you missed it, it’s important to note that Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) commissioner Bob Burns has called for limiting the public’s ability to make Public Records Law requests of the ACC. That’s a typical move of a politician under siege and with something to hide.
What Burns really should be advocating is for all ACC emails and texts and other documents to be automatically placed on-line for all to see. In any case, you can read how thoroughly Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic newspaper skewered Burns’ elitist notions here:
Breaking today from KJZZ is the story of how ACC chairperson Susan Smith is a registered lobbyist for Cox Communication while at the same time voting on issues that affect Cox.
Smith claims she forgot to recuse herself. I am going to try that excuse next time I get nailed for speeding. “Oh, uh, Officer, I’m sorry. I forgot there was a speed limit.”
To top it off, according to KJZZ, “In addition to her lobbyist registration for Cox, records show Bitter Smith also heads a trade group for cable companies, whose employees sit on her board of directors and approve her annual salary.” That salary according to KJZZ is $150,000+. Smith also makes $79.5K (+ bennies) as an ACC commissioner. And who knows what, if anything, APS is paying her? It was widely rumored that APS helped finance her last election campaign.
KJZZ’s full story is here:
This is not the land of milk and honey. This is the place where people sell their souls out for money. And you know they do. ~ Dr. John, Babylon

MASSACHUSETTS – Family sues Fay School in Southboro, claims Wi-Fi made son ill

Family sues Fay School in Southboro, claims Wi-Fi made son ill

The family of a student at the Fay School in Southboro, seen here, has filed a lawsuit claiming the school's strong Wi-Fi signal caused the boy to become ill.The family of a student at the Fay School in Southboro, seen here, has filed a lawsuit claiming the school’s strong Wi-Fi signal caused the boy to become ill. T&G Staff/Christine Peterson

By Scott O’Connell
Telegram & Gazette Staff
Posted Aug. 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM
Updated Aug 24, 2015 at 10:46 PM

WORCESTER – The family of a student at the Fay School in Southboro has filed a lawsuit claiming the school’s strong Wi-Fi signal caused the boy to become ill.

The unidentified plaintiffs, referred to as “Mother” and “Father” in the complaint, said their 12-year-old son, “G,” suffers from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, a condition that is aggravated by electromagnetic radiation. The boy was diagnosed after he frequently experienced headaches, nosebleeds, nausea, and other symptoms while sitting in class after the school installed a new, more powerful wireless Internet system in 2013, the suit says.

The school has said in response that its Wi-Fi signals were found in a recent investigation to be well below the levels required by federal safety standards.

The family is asking for an injunction from U.S. District Court that would require the Fay School to either switch to Ethernet cable Internet, turn down the Wi-Fi signal in G’s classroom, or make some other accommodation, which they say the school has refused to do to date. The suit also seeks $250,000 in damages, court records show.

G’s family’s lawyer, John J.E. Markham, II, of Boston law firm Markham & Read, on Monday said their top priority is to have the boy, a day student at the school, be able to attend Fay once classes resume Sept. 9. The judge overseeing the case, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman, last Friday scheduled a hearing for Sept. 4 in Worcester for their motion for a preliminary injunction and request for an expedited hearing.

“We’re trying to work with the school,” said Mr. Markham, who declined to reveal any personal details about his clients for privacy reasons. “We’re still hoping to reach a resolution that will allow him to safely be in those classrooms.”

The family says in the lawsuit they would have to withdraw G if the school does not provide their requested accommodations, however – something they don’t want to do, given that G is in the middle of a nine-year plan at Fay that would be interrupted as a result.

Mr. Markham said he wasn’t sure if G would suffer long-term damage if he continued to sit in the school’s Wi-Fi-equipped classrooms, but said the effects of his EHS are already a painful distraction that “has affected his ability to do well in class.”

Along with the complaint, the plaintiffs submitted to the court several letters from doctors confirming the adverse health effects the school’s Wi-Fi, which the family says “emits substantially greater radiofrequency/microwave emissions than … more low-grade systems used in most homes,” could be causing illness in a sufferer of EHS.

But whether EHS is a real condition is debatable in the wider medical community; the World Health Organization, for instance, acknowledges the existence of EHS, but clarifies it “is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”

In a statement released Monday, the Fay School said after hearing the family’s concerns about its Wi-Fi, it hired a company called Isotrope, LLC, which specializes in measurement and analysis of radio communication signals and evaluation of emissions safety compliance, to perform an analysis in January.

“Isotrope found that the combined levels of access point emissions, broadcast radio and television signals, and other RFE emissions on campus ‘were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable (FCC) safety limits,’” the statement says.

The school declined to comment directly on the family’s subsequent lawsuit, citing its policy “to not offer public comment on pending litigation.”

Dr. Jeanne Hubbuch, the Watertown physician who diagnosed G with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, wrote in a letter to the Fay School last August that there was no other medical explanation for his symptoms.

“It is know(n) that exposure to WIFI can have cellular effects. The complete extent of these effects on people is still unknown,” Dr. Hubbuch wrote. “But it is clear that children and pregnant women are at the highest risk. This is due to the brain tissue being more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is small.”

She went on to say that “due to biochemical individuality some people are more susceptible to these effects than others,” and advised precautions be taken in the case of G.

But G’s family says in their complaint the Fay School and its head of school, Robert Gustavson, refused their offer to meet and devise a plan to accommodate the boy’s condition. They also say officials at the school threatened to no longer enroll G, who has attended Fay since 2009, if his parents talked about the issue to anyone else at the school.

The family was also unhappy after officials at Fay asked them to have G see another physician, who after speaking to G for 10 minutes and not conducting any tests “pronounced that in his view there was not enough study yet done to link Wi-Fi emissions to symptoms such as those G is experiencing at Fay School,” they say in the complaint.

“This doctor stated in essence that he does not believe in EHS,” the lawsuit says. “Yet he made no alternate diagnosis.”

The family argues the school is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as its own handbook, which they say promises reasonable accommodations for students’ disabilities.

The Fay School is being represented in the case by lawyers Jaimie A. McKean and Sara G. Schwartz from the law firm of Schwartz Hannum PC in Andover. The oldest junior boarding school in the country, it enrolls 475 residential and day students at its 48 Main St. campus, according to the school’s website.

Scott O’Connell can be reached at Scott.O’ Follow him on Twitter @ScottOConnellTG

%d bloggers like this: