Re:Stetzer

Back on 5/30 Noni mentioned that the Canandian govn. has done a study of
the Stetzer filters.

I hope between then and now someone posted and set the record straight.  
But thought I'd write in case not.

"Health Canada" is a lot like our FDA. It's a govn. agency supposed to
protect the public interest but often more dedicated to corporate interests.  
It did not do a study of the Stetzer filters. It published libellious
information in the guise of a study, at the behest of industry.

Below is a posting I made on my website about this.

Shivani Arjuna
www.LifeEnergies.com


Dr. Magda Havas of the Dept. of Environment Studies at Trent
University, Ontario, has done some great studies regarding the health improvement
people experience when Graham Stetzer filters are used to remove the electrical
pollution from their living environment. (This one, for example.
http://www.stetzerelectric.com/filters/research/Havas_Stetzer_WHO04.pdf) Earlier
this year, Dr. Havas was a guest on a number of Canadian TV and radio
programs, which resulted in a lot of public awareness of the electtrical pollution
issue, as well as interest in the filters.
   
Very likely as a result of this, Health Canada did some so-called
tests of the filters, and wrote up a so-called study.
www.bccdc.org/content.php?item=62 This is such a poor piece of work that I can only say it is
wonderful that Health Canada and their electrical industry friends find
themselves so threatened by a bit of public awareness that they have to resort to
such absurdity.

I will be posting several pieces about this. Below, for starters,
is Dr. Havas' letter to Health Canada.


GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] page 1/5
Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies
TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 1232, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail
[hidden email]

Open letter to Health Canada
Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
October 10, 2006

The Honorable Tony Clement,
Minister of Health,
Health Canada.
[hidden email]

I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at
Health Canada’s Consumer and
Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for
Disease Control2 web site. The
Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the
Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty
electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site
and has not been published in a
peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been
accepted for the obvious errors
I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the electric
utility than it is in protecting
the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would approve
release of this document with
so many fundamental errors.
It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet
the Health Canada authors did
not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of
this filter, Professor Martin Graham
(UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to demonstrate
how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to encourage
your scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his
offer.
What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada
document1.
Sincerely,
Magda Havas
1 Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
McNamee. 2006.
Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters, Consumer and Clinical Radiation
Protection Bureau, Health Canada.
2 BCCDC web site: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62 NOTE: This agency s
tates the following:
Cell Phones: Scientific evidence to date has not presented convincing
evidence from either animal, cellular,
laboratory studies or epidemiology to implicate electromagnetic radiation
exposure from portable phones as
a cause of cancer.
Cellular Transmitting Towers: Most research studies conducted to date have
not shown that electromagnetic
fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site cause cancer or other
adverse health effects in the population.
Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Therefore the available
scientific evidence to date does not
support the assumption that adverse health effects from exposure to these
fields at levels normally
encountered in our homes, schools and offices pose a risk to human health.
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] page 2/5
Havas, M. 2006. Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters. Open letter
to Health
Canada, October 10, 2006.
Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure to
electromagnetic energy and
it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test
the products to see if they do indeed
accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in
mind when they decided to test
the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some of
the fundamental errors they
made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they
produced.
Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of
frequencies nor had the needed
sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately applied
equations intended for linear
loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters
produce dirty electricity that may be
harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects of
dirty electricity? Health
Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on
the electricity providers rather
than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians, as
their name implies?
This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer Health
Canada a demonstration
of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment.
I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada
document and try to keep it as
concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what Health
Canada has done or failed to do.
I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded
earlier this year to statements
made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity
and that Dr. Martin Graham (UC
Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based on
the Health Canada study design
and execution.
1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4
to 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000
cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below
this range falls off
rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document
cited by Health Canada.
So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to 5
kHz? There was an
overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of the
filters. Clearly
inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no
claims as to whether
or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters
properly. This alone makes the
entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters
to reduce dirty electricity in
the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).
overlap 4 to 5 kHz (1% effective range of GS filters)
instrument used by Health Canada 50 Hz to 5 kHz
effective range of GS filters 4 kHz to 100 kHz
frequency (kHz)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 1. Frequency range for GS filter, frequency range for equipment
Health Canada
used to test the GS filters, overlapping frequencies.
0
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] page 3/5
2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health
Canada made no attempt to
separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a
ubiquitous filter and thus
had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the
overlap between the
instrumentation and the filter’s effective range.
Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate
sensitivity because, when the GS
filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty
electricity that their
equipment failed to detect.
3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low frequencies
in reducing harmonics. They
provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever
claimed the GS filters worked
at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to
100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is no
within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters by
stating they don’t work but for
a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has less
energy and is less likely
to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See Item 5
below.
4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity
have no biological effects, but
they provide no documentation to support their claim.
Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2
diabetics, chronic fatigue,
tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have benefited
when the filters were used
to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We
have empirical evidence
that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity and
improving health.
Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin. Our
studies with diabetics were
independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to Health
Canada an estimated two
million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is
estimated to be up to $9 billion
annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by
cleaning up the dirty
electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health
care could be considerable.
Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to walk
unassisted within a few
days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other changes
were made in their diet or
medication during this period to account for these changes. We have
video-documented evidence of
these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what evidence
do they have to the
contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological
active? According to the Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates of
MS in the world. An
estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable to
work 5-10 years after
they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS Filters
were able to continue
work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their
home/work environment. Their
improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and their
ability to remain productive
members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.

5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at
the low frequency range and that
this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways? At
first they claim that the
levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically
active and then they claim that the
filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to health.
Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater the
energy. Sixty kHz (60,000
Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7 kHz
begin to penetrate the
body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies,
purportedly generated by
the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and less
penetrating power. This is
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] page 4/5
contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in his
letter to Health Canada sent
earlier this year (2006).
6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for
electricity requiring more
transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional
transmission losses due to the
continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and
transformers. However, if manufacturers
of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the
utility distributed clean electricity
these filters would not be necessary.
Poor Power Quality
Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the
United States between 4 and 6 billion
dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does not
include the health costs.
Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors (filters)
because they require clean
electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are
costly if they stop production and
damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to
protect computers and other
sensitive equipment for the same reason.
The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long
recognized the problems associated
with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have
filters to mitigate this problem,
although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario
Hydro’s own document, Power
Quality Reference Guide (1998).
According to the IEEE 519-1992, “Since most electronic equipment islocated
at a low voltage level of is
associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the
effects of voltage notching. Voltage
notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic,
that are much higher than
normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems. These
frequencies can be in the radio
frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects associated
with spurious RF (page 39).”
Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the utilities
have filters to improve power
quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesn’t requirean
electrician has been designed for the
home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by
industry. The GS filter protects
equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who are
sensitive to this form of
energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is not
that a filter can reduce dirty
electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isn’t this what
Health Canada should be testing?
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as electrical
hypersensitivity (EHS)3,
contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few of
those individuals who have
participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the
filters. They can’t all be wrong. I
encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies
because that is what is of
primary importance.
3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS) as: “ . . . a phenomenon
where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in
the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a
real and sometimes a debilitating problem
for the affected persons . . . “
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 [hidden email] page 5/5
Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity
(EHS) and that an addition 35%
have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for
between 980,000 and 11
million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic
pollution in its various forms. So
this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.
Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the electronic
equipment we use and because
of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility will
have to deal with this pollutant
and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will be
destroyed because of the
insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own
guidelines.
Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with
electromagnetic pollution and electrical
hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing
the products that claim to
work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in
schools and elsewhere, and
providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that our
environment is as clean, safe,
and healthy as possible.
An offer to demonstrate how the filters work
Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing to
demonstrate to Health Canada
how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this offer
because it is important for
Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to
understand how the filters work,
especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.
I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzer’s offer because I
assume that we are
interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.
References
IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control
in Electrical Power
Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society
and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications
Society; Approved June 18,
1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National
Standards Institute.
Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J. McNamee.
2006. Report on
Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection
Bureau, Health Canada.
available at: www.bccdc.org/content.php?.item=62
Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical
Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies,
World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26
October, Prague, Czech
Republic.
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From
Diagnosis to Chronic Disease
Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health Care
in Canada, March
2002, 7 pp http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca
Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario
Hydro.
Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books
Ltd., London. 294 pp.
Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.
Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.












.
   


**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823281x1201398699/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&
bcd=JunestepsfooterNO62)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am thinking on trying these filters. My Home Biologist said that they tend to raise the EMF however while lowering the EF in the house???  Whatcan I expect?   Loni

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: [eSens] Re:Stetzer
To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 7:48 PM








Back on 5/30 Noni mentioned that the Canandian govn. has done a study of
the Stetzer filters.

I hope between then and now someone posted and set the record straight.
But thought I'd write in case not.

"Health Canada" is a lot like our FDA. It's a govn. agency supposed to
protect the public interest but often more dedicated to corporate interests.
It did not do a study of the Stetzer filters. It published libellious
information in the guise of a study, at the behest of industry.

Below is a posting I made on my website about this.

Shivani Arjuna
www.LifeEnergies. com

Dr. Magda Havas of the Dept. of Environment Studies at Trent
University, Ontario, has done some great studies regarding the health improvement
people experience when Graham Stetzer filters are used to remove the electrical
pollution from their living environment. (This one, for example.
http://www.stetzere lectric.com/ filters/research /Havas_Stetzer_ WHO04.pdf) Earlier
this year, Dr. Havas was a guest on a number of Canadian TV and radio
programs, which resulted in a lot of public awareness of the electtrical pollution
issue, as well as interest in the filters.

Very likely as a result of this, Health Canada did some so-called
tests of the filters, and wrote up a so-called study.
www.bccdc.org/ content.php? item=62 This is such a poor piece of work that I can only say it is
wonderful that Health Canada and their electrical industry friends find
themselves so threatened by a bit of public awareness that they have to resort to
such absurdity.

I will be posting several pieces about this. Below, for starters,
is Dr. Havas' letter to Health Canada.

GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 mhavas@trentu. ca page 1/5
Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies
TRENT UNIVERSITY, PETERBOROUGH, ONTARIO, CANADA, K9J 7B8
Phone: (705) 748-1011 ext. 1232, FAX: (705) 748-1569, e-mail
mhavas@trentu. ca

Open letter to Health Canada
Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters1
October 10, 2006

The Honorable Tony Clement,
Minister of Health,
Health Canada.
clement.j@parl. gc.ca

I raise a serious concern about a document1 written by six scientists at
Health Canada’s Consumer and
Clinical Protection Bureau that was recently posted on the BC Centre for
Disease Control2 web site. The
Health Canada scientists purport to test the effectiveness of the
Graham/Stetzer filters to reduce dirty
electricity. This document does not appear on the Health Canada web site
and has not been published in a
peer-reviewed journal. Had it been peer reviewed it would not have been
accepted for the obvious errors
I mention below. This document is more concerned in protecting the electric
utility than it is in protecting
the health of Canadians. It surprises me that Health Canada would approve
release of this document with
so many fundamental errors.
It is my understanding that this document has been circulated widely yet
the Health Canada authors did
not have the courtesy to send a copy of their report to the designers of
this filter, Professor Martin Graham
(UC Berkeley) and Mr. Dave Stetzer (President of Stetzer Electric).
I ask you to look into this matter. Dave Stetzer has agreed to demonstrate
how the filters work using appropriate equipment and I ask you to encourage
your scientists at Health Canada to take him up on his
offer.
What follows is my evaluation of and response to the Health Canada
document1.
Sincerely,
Magda Havas
1 Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J.
McNamee. 2006.
Report on Evaluation of Stetzer Filters, Consumer and Clinical Radiation
Protection Bureau, Health Canada.
2 BCCDC web site: www.bccdc.org/ content.php? .item=62 NOTE: This agency s
tates the following:
Cell Phones: Scientific evidence to date has not presented convincing
evidence from either animal, cellular,
laboratory studies or epidemiology to implicate electromagnetic radiation
exposure from portable phones as
a cause of cancer.
Cellular Transmitting Towers: Most research studies conducted to date have
not shown that electromagnetic
fields surrounding a cellular transmitter site cause cancer or other
adverse health effects in the population.
Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Therefore the available
scientific evidence to date does not
support the assumption that adverse health effects from exposure to these
fields at levels normally
encountered in our homes, schools and offices pose a risk to human health.
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 mhavas@trentu. ca page 2/5
Havas, M. 2006. Response to: Evaluation of the Stetzer Filters. Open letter
to Health
Canada, October 10, 2006.
Many products are now available to help people who suffer from exposure to
electromagnetic energy and
it is right for Health Canada to take these claims seriously and to test
the products to see if they do indeed
accomplish what they claim. Obviously this is what Health Canada had in
mind when they decided to test
the GS filters. I applaud them for this but am deeply disturbed by some of
the fundamental errors they
made during the testing of these filters and in the flawed document they
produced.
Health Canada used equipment that neither had the appropriate range of
frequencies nor had the needed
sensitivity to test the GS filters? Health Canada inappropriately applied
equations intended for linear
loads to non-linear loads? Health Canada claimed that the GS filters
produce dirty electricity that may be
harmful to human health when they previously denied any harmful effects of
dirty electricity? Health
Canada seems more concerned about the impact these filters might have on
the electricity providers rather
than the impact dirty electricity might have on the health of Canadians, as
their name implies?
This open letter is intended to set the record straight and to offer Health
Canada a demonstration
of what the GS filters do using appropriate equipment.
I will deal with some of the more blatant errors in the Health Canada
document and try to keep it as
concise and non-technical as possible so that others will see what Health
Canada has done or failed to do.
I understand that Dr. Don Hillman (Michigan State University) responded
earlier this year to statements
made in this document concerning biological effects of dirty electricity
and that Dr. Martin Graham (UC
Berkeley) plans to respond to the electrical engineering aspects based on
the Health Canada study design
and execution.
1. The GS filters remove dirty electricity within the frequency range of 4
to 100 kHz (4,000 and 100,000
cycles per second) and their ability to reduce microsurges above and below
this range falls off
rapidly. This was clearly stated in the Havas and Stetzer (2004) document
cited by Health Canada.
So why did Health Canada use equipment that covered the range of 50 Hz to 5
kHz? There was an
overlap of 1 kHz and this tested 1% of the effective frequency range of the
filters. Clearly
inappropriate instrumentation was used and hence Health Canada can make no
claims as to whether
or not the filters work because they were unable to test the filters
properly. This alone makes the
entire document worthless as a test of the effectiveness of the GS filters
to reduce dirty electricity in
the 4 to 100 kHz frequency range (Figure 1).
overlap 4 to 5 kHz (1% effective range of GS filters)
instrument used by Health Canada 50 Hz to 5 kHz
effective range of GS filters 4 kHz to 100 kHz
frequency (kHz)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 1. Frequency range for GS filter, frequency range for equipment
Health Canada
used to test the GS filters, overlapping frequencies.
0
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 mhavas@trentu. ca page 3/5
2. The dirty electricity rides on top of the 60 Hz sine wave yet Health
Canada made no attempt to
separate the 60 Hz cycle from the high frequencies. They could have used a
ubiquitous filter and thus
had more accuracy for the higher frequencies for at least 1 kHz of the
overlap between the
instrumentation and the filter’s effective range.
Health Canada admits their equipment did not have the appropriate
sensitivity because, when the GS
filter was plugged in, the microsurge meter measured reductions in dirty
electricity that their
equipment failed to detect.
3. Health Canada states that the filters have no effect at low frequencies
in reducing harmonics. They
provide evidence of this up to the 7th harmonic or 420 Hz. No one ever
claimed the GS filters worked
at these low frequencies. They work for the frequency range of 4,000 to
100,000 Hz and 420 Hz is no
within that range. This is a red herring meant to discredit the filters by
stating they don’t work but for
a frequency range they were not intended for. This lower frequency has less
energy and is less likely
to be as biologically active as higher frequencies (Riley 1998). See Item 5
below.
4. Health Canada erroneously claims that low levels of dirty electricity
have no biological effects, but
they provide no documentation to support their claim.
Studies show that people who have multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2
diabetics, chronic fatigue,
tinnitus, and symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have benefited
when the filters were used
to clean up their home or work environment (Havas and Stetzer 2004). We
have empirical evidence
that these filters work both in the sense of reducing dirty electricity and
improving health.
Diabetics had lower fasting glucose levels and required less insulin. Our
studies with diabetics were
independently replicated in Japan with similar results. According to Health
Canada an estimated two
million Canadians have diabetes and the cost of diabetes in Canada is
estimated to be up to $9 billion
annually. If even a small percentage of these diabetics could benefit by
cleaning up the dirty
electricity in their home/work/school environment, the savings in health
care could be considerable.
Multiple sclerosis patients had reduced tremors and some were able to walk
unassisted within a few
days to weeks after filters were installed in their homes. No other changes
were made in their diet or
medication during this period to account for these changes. We have
video-documented evidence of
these improvements. How does Health Canada explain this and what evidence
do they have to the
contrary to support the claims that dirty electricity is not biological
active? According to the Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Canada (2002) Canada has one of the highest rates of
MS in the world. An
estimated 50,000 Canadians have MS and 70% of people with MS are unable to
work 5-10 years after
they are diagnosed. A number of people with MS who have used the GS Filters
were able to continue
work or return to work after they reduced the dirty electricity in their
home/work environment. Their
improved quality of life, the reduced stress on family members, and their
ability to remain productive
members of society should be of enormous interest to Health Canada.

5. Health Canada claims that the GS filters produce dirty electricity at
the low frequency range and that
this dirty electricity may be harmful. How can they argue it both ways? At
first they claim that the
levels of dirty electricity are so low that they are not biologically
active and then they claim that the
filters produce low levels of dirty electricity that are harmful to health.
Energy is related to frequency and the higher the frequency the greater the
energy. Sixty kHz (60,000
Hz) has 1000 times more energy than 60 Hz. Also, frequencies above 1.7 kHz
begin to penetrate the
body (Riley 1998). Yet Health Canada claims that the lower frequencies,
purportedly generated by
the GS filters, have a greater biological effect with less energy and less
penetrating power. This is
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 mhavas@trentu. ca page 4/5
contrary to logic. Dr. Don Hillman addresses this in greater detail in his
letter to Health Canada sent
earlier this year (2006).
6. Health Canada claims that the filters would increase our demand for
electricity requiring more
transmission facilities. The electricity provider will have additional
transmission losses due to the
continuous nature of this load in their distribution lines and
transformers. However, if manufacturers
of electronic equipment properly filtered their equipment and if the
utility distributed clean electricity
these filters would not be necessary.
Poor Power Quality
Dirty electricity is a serious utility concern. It costs industry in the
United States between 4 and 6 billion
dollars each year for dirty power (Fortune, June 5, 1999) and this does not
include the health costs.
Industry has long recognized this and they use large capacitors (filters)
because they require clean
electricity for proper functioning of their equipment. Power surges are
costly if they stop production and
damage equipment. Surge suppressors are used in homes and offices to
protect computers and other
sensitive equipment for the same reason.
The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has long
recognized the problems associated
with spurious radio frequencies (RF) and the electric utilities have
filters to mitigate this problem,
although they tend not to use them as often as they should (see Ontario
Hydro’s own document, Power
Quality Reference Guide (1998).
According to the IEEE 519-1992, “Since most electronic equipment islocated
at a low voltage level of is
associated power distribution system, it is frequently exposed to the
effects of voltage notching. Voltage
notches frequently introduce frequencies, both harmonic and nonharmonic,
that are much higher than
normally exhibited in 5 kV and higher voltage distribution systems. These
frequencies can be in the radio
frequency (RF) range, and as such, can introduce harmful effects associated
with spurious RF (page 39).”
Poor power quality is a serious problem and both industry and the utilities
have filters to improve power
quality. Now a filter that plugs into an outlet and doesn’t requirean
electrician has been designed for the
home. The GS filter is a smaller version of the capacitors used by
industry. The GS filter protects
equipment from power surges and research shows that it helps people who are
sensitive to this form of
energy (Havas and Stetzer 2004). Surely the novel information here is not
that a filter can reduce dirty
electricity but that dirty electricity affects health. Isn’t this what
Health Canada should be testing?
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
People, who are genuinely suffering from what they describe as electrical
hypersensitivity (EHS)3,
contact me from all over North America. We have been able to help a few of
those individuals who have
participated in studies. Countless others have also benefited from the
filters. They can’t all be wrong. I
encourage Health Canada to test the health claims we make in our studies
because that is what is of
primary importance.
3 The World Health Organization (2004) describes electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS) as: “ . . . a phenomenon
where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in
the vicinity of devices emanating electric,
magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Whatever its cause, EHS is a
real and sometimes a debilitating problem
for the affected persons . . . “
GS Filters/Health Canada, Oct. 2006 mhavas@trentu. ca page 5/5
Estimates show that 3% of the population has electrical hypersensitivity
(EHS) and that an addition 35%
have symptoms of EHS (Philips and Philips 2006). That range accounts for
between 980,000 and 11
million Canadians who may be adversely affected by electromagnetic
pollution in its various forms. So
this is potentially a very serious health concern in Canada.
Dirty electricity is ubiquitous and getting worse because of the electronic
equipment we use and because
of the inadequacy of some of our power lines. Eventually the utility will
have to deal with this pollutant
and we hope it will be sooner rather than later so that fewer lives will be
destroyed because of the
insensitivity of the industry and their failure to adhere to their own
guidelines.
Health Canada should take a more proactive role in dealing with
electromagnetic pollution and electrical
hypersensitivity by informing doctors about the symptoms of EHS, testing
the products that claim to
work, establishing monitoring programs for electromagnetic pollution in
schools and elsewhere, and
providing Canadians with solutions through legislation to ensure that our
environment is as clean, safe,
and healthy as possible.
An offer to demonstrate how the filters work
Dave Stetzer, one of the co-inventors of the GS filter, would be willing to
demonstrate to Health Canada
how the filters work using the appropriate equipment. He makes this offer
because it is important for
Health Canada to be aware of the seriousness of this problem and to
understand how the filters work,
especially if they later decide to do some studies with human subjects.
I look foreword to a favorable response to Dave Stetzer’s offer because I
assume that we are
interested in the same thing--the health of Canadians.
References
IEEE 1992. IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control
in Electrical Power
Systems. Sponsors: Transmission and distribution committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society
and Static Power Converter Committee of the IEE Industry Applications
Society; Approved June 18,
1992 IEEE Standards Board; Approved January 4, 1993 American National
Standards Institute.
Gajda, G., A. Thansandote, E. Lemay, D. Lecuyer, W. Gorman, and J. McNamee.
2006. Report on
Evaluation of Stetzer Filters Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection
Bureau, Health Canada.
available at: www.bccdc.org/ content.php? .item=62
Havas M and Stetzer D. 2004. Dirty Electricity and Electrical
Hypersensitivity: Five Case Studies,
World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity, 25-26
October, Prague, Czech
Republic.
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. 2002. On The Path to a Cure: From
Diagnosis to Chronic Disease
Management Brief Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Health Care
in Canada, March
2002, 7 pp http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca
Ontario Hydro. 1998. Power Quality Reference Guide, 3rd Edition, Ontario
Hydro.
Philips A and Philips J. 2006. The Power Watch Handbook. Piatkus Books
Ltd., London. 294 pp.
Reilly, J.P. 1998. Applied Bioelectricity. Springer-Verlag, NY, 561 pp.
Stahlkopf, Karl. 1999. Cost of Dirty Power. Fortune, June 5, 1999.

.


************ **
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122182 3281x1201398699/ aol?redir= http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072& amp;hmpgID= 62&amp;
bcd=Junestepsfooter NO62)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

















     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]