STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
(HESA)
NUMBER 034
October 28, 2010
Curtis Bennett
Evidence By Curtis Bennett
October 28, 2010
11:30
I want to thank you very much for inviting me to testify at this committee.
I first want to tell the people in the room what my professional background is. I'm a government-trained provincial and national electrical professional, so I design magnetic fields for a living and install these applications for industry.
On top of that, I have a building engineering background. Really important in that as well is that I've built that education to complement a background in infrared technology, which allows us to see temperature beyond our visible spectrum. Now, that can't be overstated, because seeing temperature molecular levels has allowed us to do consulting for a multitude of industries in oil and gas. We are part of a team giving their professionals the ability to see beyond their visible spectrum.
It's really important for the committee to understand in regard to me being here that I've consulted on national security issues and on every part of industry. I lecture medical academia in the United States and Canada, where they get education credits they need for licensing. One of the things I educate on in medical academia is magnetic and electromagnetic interference with humans and what it means to interact with anything.
I'll give you an idea of how important this issue is. In the case of electromagnetic radiation, we just recently submitted information to Natural Resources showing that electromagnetic radiation from the sun was causing the excitation of buildings to generate heat close to boiling temperature.
What I also what to say about that is that I've actually imaged, for the medical community, the early detection of breast cancer. I've imaged cellphone radiation in arms, face, and ears without even understanding what I was looking at; nor could the patient see what was in front of me.
As an electrical professional, what I wanted to bring forward to this committee as well is the point that there's been an oversight in Safety Code 6, in that you didn't compare frequencies to frequencies. Children aren't inanimate objects sitting in a room. They are very intricate electrical systems, and in this application they are essentially bare conductors. Being a bare conductor means they're very susceptible to any electromagnetic fields.
Something I've done for industry--and I've done this for their insurers, for these guys, and for manufacturing or lumber industry at the same time--is to actually image this effect in an electrical application. I have imaged 60 hertz, a very low frequency interaction, with electrical components that would have caused failure in their operation, killed people, and shut down the whole process.
Now, that's 60 hertz. Compare that to these children who are functioning at low hertz, at 7.8 hertz, and now you're imposing 2.4 gigahertz, or 5 gigahertz on a 7 hertz signal. You're going to cause electromagnetic induction, which is going to produce heat. You're going to change the frequency and the electrical parameters of that child. Also, when you get into the higher radiations, all you're talking about is a bigger heating effect because you have more aggressive radiations with that.
Safety Code 6 says that what's “to be avoided is the unintentional stimulation” of tissue. Safety Code 6 says we're to avoid the heating effect. Because that oversight didn't include frequency to frequency and what this meant for biologic systems in this. Guess what's happening in schools? This is, in effect, causing the “unintentional stimulation” of tissue. This is causing a heating effect. When they talk about non-thermal issues, when you're talking about things in biologic tissue polarizing at high speeds, the fact that it produces a heat effect should be very disturbing to every professional. It's absolutely unnatural to have a mystery heating effect in an electrical application.
When I actually took this forward to Health Canada, to the radio frequency professionals, I got comments like “they're not electrical”, and that's the extent of it. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said the same thing. They laughed when they heard there was a mysterious heat effect, but they didn't know cause. Causality and biological plausibility are that you have a frequency and an electrical conflict inducing electrical currents into those children--into everybody.
This is also dangerous out in industry, because this is causing our ecosystems and our atmosphere to polarize up to 10 billion times a second, at twice the frequencies, and if you take anything and ask it to change direction by 4.8 or 10 billion times a second, you're going to have some problems and produce heat.
I'm looking forward to answering any questions related to this. The work that I do has humbled me, but we're here to tell the truth related to all issues.
11:51
Thank you.
Listen, something very important on Safety Code 6 is that it is an incomplete document. With all due respect to the professionals working on this, you can't compare frequencies to children as if they're furniture. Mr. Palmer has every right to be concerned about this, because Safety Code 6 says this: that we want to avoid the unintentional stimulation of tissue. In examples, studies have shown nerve and muscle depolarization. That's not electromagnetic hypersensitivity: what happens when the nerves in the body aren't working? Again, because these children, and people in general, are effectively unprotected conductors, you're going to have this frequency conflict; you're going to have this change and something related to this process.
Now I'm a nationally trained government professional, and I contacted the health minister on this. I got back a letter even though I said to the health minister that what's changed in Safety Code 6 is that causality has been found, a biological plausibility has been found, and reproducibility has been found. I got a letter back from the health minister just prior to this meeting thanking me for my interest and totally dismissing my qualifications as well as the science related to the frequencies.
You have to immediately go to your electrical professionals, who are trained and certified in every province, and ask what would happen when you take these high frequencies and have them interact with another lower frequency. But don't equate them to children, because even the electrical professionals didn't understand--
12:02
With all due respect to Ms. Pieterson and doing those things.... Again, I really want to tell the committee this. Consulting at the level that I do, and consulting for industry and insurers at the same time, there's not a school board that wants to accept responsibility for this. Health Canada does not want to accept responsibility for this.
Because of the oversight in missing the frequency-to-frequency conflict in here, Safety Code 6 actually validates why Wi-Fi should not be in schools: it's causing the unintentional stimulation of tissue and the heat effect, which they call nerve and muscle depolarization—
12:03
How many of you want your kids in that environment?
12:10
When you talk about caution in using this, you have to bring the right professionals into this. Health Canada needs to go back to the electrical engineers and these other professionals and say there was a frequency conflict, because blasting this stuff through our atmosphere is affecting pollinators and everything else.
We have to be careful about convenience versus the right professionals to install this safely. Blasting this out across our atmosphere and in schools without that complete data is irresponsible.
12:27
You know, unfortunately that is the fact, and again I want to stress this to Ms. Pieterson and Health Canada. Safety Code 6 is a complete document in that it says the problem with all the things we're talking about today is that we're missing causality, biological plausibility.
I'm here, Ms. Pieterson, as a science professional who is trained and certified by the government, to tell you that the science has changed, and that's for this panel as well: a prolonged study effectively means that we're going to radiate your children and they're going to be in a lot of trouble because Safety Code 6 says “nerve and muscle depolarization”. If Ms. Pieterson and Health Canada—
12:41
Absolutely. There's something I'd like to say about the World Health Organization--I say this with all the required professional humility--which is that the World Health Organization missed the fact that there's an electrical conflict between frequencies.
As far as recommendations go, here is something that could be done immediately following the meeting. If Health Canada went to their industry-trained electrical professionals, the ones it has certified as professionals, and to the electrical engineers and any reference in Safety Code 6, and said that this is an electrical frequency problem between an unprotected conductor and these high frequencies, within one hour you would have those electrical professionals talking about this induced heat effect and this unintentional stimulation of tissue. That can be qualified before the end of the day.
The idea that we're going to subject children or anybody to this radiation when Safety Code 6 specifically says that example studies have shown nerve and muscle depolarization.... Any medical professional I've ever talked to, when you talk about your nerves not working... This is going to produce symptoms from the top of your head to the tips of your toes.
Mr. Curtis Bennett, President, Thermographix Consulting Corporation
Audio Recordings of Evidence
Copyright © 2010 Curtis Bennett, Thermographix Consulting Corporation. All rights reserved.
Educational and Informational Purposes: All
information on this site and all links that are linked to from
StayOnTheTruth.com represent solely the opinions of their producers.
This
information and links to more information are made available to you as a
resource for your own research and evaluation not as an endorsement.
StayOnTheTruth.com
is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe
anything that that is presented linked to from this site; however, it
does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own
judgement about very important things that affect your life.
Fair Dealing and Fair Use Notice:
The material on this site is provided for educational and informational
purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being
made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific,
environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It
is believed that this constitutes a 'fair dealing' or 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in copyright law. In
accordance with the Fair Dealing or Fair Use intention, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in
using the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair dealing' or 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does
not constitute legal or technical advice.
© Copyright 2025. "Stay On The Truth", Dianne Knight. All Rights Reserved.
Landline Telephone
(416) 551-7259
Please Note:
Landline Telephone cannot receive a text message and without any notification if sent.
Mailing Address
Dianne Knight, B.A.
18-3555 Don Mills Rd.
Suite 157
North York, Ontario, Canada
M2H 3N3