|
|
|
The letter below was sent to many life insurance companies in the U.S. Please take a moment to send it to yours. Also, pass it on to friends or relatives who may work in the industry.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing with information about an environmental toxin which is already causing health problems, shortening lives, and causing disability.
The environmental toxin is radiofrequency pollution.
From A.M. Best's February 14, 2013 Best's Briefing - "Emerging Technology-Based Risks"
In the above excerpt, A. M. Best doesn't even touch on the most important source of liability for life, disability, and health insurance companies - shortened life spans and increased morbidity and disability.
According to the Department of Interior "the electromagnetic [radiofrequency] radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today." (http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html) The July 24, 2014 OSHA website acknowledges, “There are no specific standards for radiofrequency and microwave radiation issues.” (https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html) The CDC just softened a cautionary statement about cellphones, probably due to industry pressure (http://www.prlog.org/12362077-cdc-retracts-its-precautionary-health-warning-about-cell-phone-radiation.html). Furthermore, a detailed investigation showed almost no enforcement of existing FCC RF limits and rampant violations (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1770139.htm). A Wall Street Journal investigation (http://online.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boom-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055) reports similar findings with one in ten towers out of compliance and experts concerned that out of compliance towers will be transmitting in the thermal range by around the end of 2015.
In addition to being thermally-based and unenforced, the inadequate FCC radiofrequency radiation limits do not even address an important source of radiofrequency exposure - electrical pollution.
There are two sources of radiofrequency exposure. One is transmitted radiofrequency radiation from wireless technology. Exposures can come from personal devices, ambient sources such as antennas, WiFi, and other people's gadgets, and transmitting utility meters - also called smart meters, AMR meters, etc. I have included a series of video links below to get you a relatively quick overview of the problem. If you prefer reading material, here are a couple of links to strongly worded statements from medical professionals warning against having WiFi in schools http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf and http://aaemonline.org/images/LettertoLAUSD.pdf. If nothing else, these statements should serve as a warning that wireless technology is unsafe.
The second source of radiofrequency exposure is from radiofrequencies conducted on electrical wiring from modern electrical usage, also known as electrical pollution or "dirty" electricity. This has become a significant and ubiquitous problem. Sources of "dirty" electricity include dimmer switches, energy efficient lighting, variable speed motors, electronics, digital or transmitting utility meters, broadband over power lines, bad electrical connections, and worn switches and outlets. Below is a series of videos about "dirty" electricity. A study was conducted in schools that found that particularly in elementary schools reducing the levels of "dirty" electricity improved the learning environment (www.electricalpollution.com/documents/08_Havas&Olstad_schools-1.pdf). Another study found that levels of "dirty" electricity were highly correlated with cancer risk. The author went so far as to call "dirty" electricity a universal carcinogen similar to ionizing radiation (www.electricalpollution.com/documents/MilhamMorganAmJIndMed2008.pdf).
Both sources of radiofrequency exposure cause similar biological effects and thus cause similar health problems. Below is a video showing the similarity for one particular effect which may be responsible for the increasing rates of thrombosis in pregnant women, among other detrimental effects.
Please also see the Children and Radiofrequency Sickness page and the Autism page at http://www.electricalpollution.com for information about the damage that RF exposure is doing to our future generations, expensive societally and for insurance providers.
Often the lack of known mechanism is cited as an objection to taking precautionary action. "Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593) and "Microwave electromagnetic fields act by activating voltage-gated calcium channels: why the current international safety standards do not predict biological hazard (http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/Pallmicrow-vgccnoheat.pdf) by Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University, put an end to that reason for avoiding precautionary action. These papers outline one of the mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can have the significant health impacts being seen in the literature and reported by affected individuals. The second paper also outlines a course of action to quickly and efficiently establish biologically meaningful safety limits.
Right now sources of radiofrequency exposure are enjoying a great deal of popularity, however that does not make the danger any less, in fact it makes the societal harm much greater. Just as smoking was popular, use of asbestos was common, and lead paint was ubiquitous - things can change. Experts are calling for better safety standards (ones that actually protect against biological effects) - http://www.prlog.org/12355167-fcc-98-scientific-experts-demand-stronger-regulation-of-cellphone-radiation.html There are safe technologies. Engineering can improve, but awareness must increase and create demand. In the meantime, you need to protect your health, life, and disability insurance customers and your business.
More and more information is becoming available that highlights the dangers of radiofrequency exposure. The safety of radiofrequency radiation, utilized by all wireless devices, is seriously in question. Reputable scientists are calling for it to classified as a probable carcinogen http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(13)00003-5/abstract , while other equally qualified experts are calling for it to classified as a carcinogen http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2013-0006. A probable carcinogen is definitely a bad insurance risk. A carcinogen is even worse. Watch this video about Jimmy Gonzalez (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlOVJd0lA8) to understand what this means in real life. This risk can be managed, as smoking has been, but not without awareness.
What can you do?
Additionally, your company could also:
Reducing community radiofrequency radiation exposures would benefit the whole community. A healthier community is a wealthier, happier community and is more attractive to business and to prospective residents since health care and health insurance are huge expenses. People who are unaware of RF pollution as a problem affecting them often "feel better," "more peaceful," "more energetic," and "sleep better" when their RF exposure is reduced. Try a pilot program to reduce RF exposure within the company to assess the problem, the best techniques for addressing it, and the benefits accrued. The first insurance companies addressing this problem stand to gain the most.
Please see www.electricalpollution.com/OpenLetterToInsuranceCompanies.html for live links.
Enclosures:
Supplemental links:
Contact the Webmaster at webmaster@electricalpollution.com Receive updates: join the electrical pollution email list by typing "join email list" in the subject heading when you email.
|