If you took “E” and feel sick or overheated, don’t wait! Go to a hospital. By the time some people got there, it was too late and they died. (You won’t get arrested!)
“E” is almost ALWAYS a combo drug. You never know what’s in it. One tab tested had: MDMA (Ecstasy), meth, coke, ketamine, DMP, and TFMPP (“Legal X”). PMMA is in “E” too, and it may have been there a while.
PMMA (a toxic meth chemical) has been found in people who died taking so-called “E”. Even by itself, “E” can cause dangerous body overheating. Overheating can cause seizures, brain damage, or death. PMMA can block the “E” high so people take more and overheat more easily. E + PMMA = more toxic
Even 1 or 2 tabs can be a problem. Some people’s bodies just can’t handle even one tab. Taking several tabs at once or over a few hours can really be bad.
Using other drugs (booze, prescription or street) at the same time makes toxic effects worse.
If you take “E”, always have someone sober with you to take you to hospital right away if you get sick or overheat.
Best idea? Don’t do “E”, especially right now. Remember,you never know what you are really taking.
The following statement was prepared at the request of the Provincial Health Officer by Mary McBride, Distinguished Scientist, Department of Cancer Control, of the BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC. It has been approved by Dr David McLean, Head of cancer Prevention BCCA.
Date: 23 December, 2011
Personal exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RF), through the use of cell phones, has increased dramatically, since their introduction in the mid- to late-1980s. The expanding use of this technology has been accompanied by concerns about public health. Therefore, since that time, there has been extensive research into the health effects, including cancer effects, of exposure to RF. These studies included (1) laboratory studies of biological effects on cells, which provide information on possible mechanisms by which RF could cause cancer; (2) studies of effects in animals, which provide information on whether biological changes lead to health-related change; and (3) direct observation and assessment of cancer risk in humans.
Smart Meters emit RF radiation, but only intermittently, and at a level several times below that of the highest level of personal exposures from cell phones, and well below existing limits for RF exposure to the public. Smart Meters generate an RF signal an average of only one minute per day. In addition, Smart Meters emit very low power – about one watt. This is less than 2 microwatts per square centimetre (μW/cm2) when standing adjacent to the meter. A microwatt is one millionth of a watt. And, exposure to RF drops quickly with distance from the device. Three meters (10 feet) from the smart meter, the radio frequency signal drops to less than 0.001 per cent (0.005 μW/cm2) of the Health Canada exposure limits. This exposure level is much less than exposure to RF from cell phone use.
However, since both cell phones and Smart Meters emit RF, the research into RF exposures for cell phones is relevant to an understanding of cancer risk from Smart Meters.
First, it is important to note that brain tumour rates (the kind of cancer of most concern) in adults and children have not increased with increasing cell phone use. Major recent studies of cell phone use and brain cancer include the Interphone study, the largest case-control study ever undertaken, that compared the RF exposures, as determined by cell phone usage, of those who developed a brain tumour and those who did not; and a Danish study of 365,000 cell phone subscribers in the country, whose subscriber records were linked to the population cancer records to determine cancer rates by extent of cell phone use.
The Interphone study (2010) reported that, although estimates of risk of brain tumour were the same or lower for most groups of users, there was a statistically higher risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain tumour, observed among the few cases who had used a cell phone 20 years or more. The authors concluded that “because of biases and errors inherent in the study design, the results could not be interpreted as meaning that RF exposure actually was the cause of the excess risk of brain tumours”.
Subsequent to publication of the Interphone study, a multidisciplinary working group of 31 experts convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, reviewed all the published research to date. They concluded that there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC Classification 2B): that is, “a positive association (had) been observed between exposure to (RF) and cancer, for which a causal interpretation is considered … to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence”.
Following the publication of the Interphone study, a report summarizing the IARC Working Group review (The Lancet Oncology, July 2011) concluded that the Interphone results, “along with those from other epidemiological, biological, and animal studies, and brain tumour incidence trends, suggest that within the first 10-15 years of exposure to RF radiation from cell phones, the period of use examined in Interphone, there is unlikely to be a material increase in brain tumours in adults”.
The report also concluded that, “although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence was increasingly against the hypothesis that (RF radiation from) mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.”
Subsequently, the large Danish study, whose study design is not subject to the same bias and error as the Interphone study, did not find any excess risk of brain tumours among any group of cell phone users, even those with heavy or long-term use.
The evidence, therefore, does not support a conclusion that RF fields, whether from cell phones or Smart Meters, can cause brain tumours in adults. There is so far little direct human data on those with more than 20 years’ cell phone use, and limited information on risk of other cancers, but the limited information we have is generally negative. There is also no direct information on children. More studies, to address these gaps in our understanding of RF and cancer risk, are underway. However, the extensive laboratory research to date has not identified any mechanisms that could operate in either adults or children that would lead to an excess risk of tumours in general.
On May 31st the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields – such as those emitted by cell phones – as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
This change was made based on the reported increased risk of a rare, malignant brain tumour associated with heavy long-term cell phone use.
While its classification by WHO/IARC as a 'possible' carcinogen means that the evidence is inadequate to classify mobile phone use as a 'known' or even a 'probable' carcinogen, the classification has understandably reignited concerns over the safety of cell phones and has resulted in calls for changes in regulations, the lowering of exposure levels, and the restriction of use by children.
Given that cell phones, wi-fi and smart meters all transmit information with radiofrequency waves, some members of the public have also argued that these devices, as well as baby monitors, and FM radio, which also use radiofrequency transmission, be curtailed or banned.
Dr. Perry Kendall, British Columbia’s provincial health officer, recognises these concerns. Dr. Kendall and his colleagues across the country regularly review information and new science as it becomes available, and have established ongoing review mechanisms to ensure that new knowledge is assessed quickly.
Given the current scientific evidence, the consensus of public health practitioners is that at current exposure levels these electromagnetic fields do not constitute a threat to the health of the public.
The possible association between mobile phone use and cancer risk, particularly among long-term heavy users of cell phones, does warrant further study – research is continuing and will be monitored.
It is also important to note that there are a wide variety of everyday items which have been given the classification “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the WHO/IARC, including coffee, pickled vegetables, and certain oral contraceptives.
Q - Does the classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic mean that new information has become available?
A - No. The group of studies on which this classification was based was released about 16 months ago. They reported an increased incidence of specific brain tumours for cell phone users reporting the most use (greater than or equal to 1640 hours per year). Past studies have also shown an increased risk of tumours on the same side as cell phone use in heavy users who used cell phones for 10 years or longer. However, these findings are based on self-reported use, which can cause “recall bias” – when someone who has experienced a negative outcome is more likely to remember possible exposures than someone who has not had that outcome.
Q - Are these findings applicable to modern cell phones?
A - Past studies have included older cell phones that produce higher levels of radiofrequency radiation (RF). Modern cell phones also emit RF, but often at much lower levels, and they also carry manufacturers’ warnings about keeping them a certain distance from the body. In addition, as the cell phone network is enlarged with more and more antennas installed, the power that an individual cell phone uses to reach the network decreases, lowering the user’s radiation exposure.
Q - I am worried about my time spent using a cell phone. What should I do?
A- There are many ways you can limit your exposure to radiofrequency waves if you are concerned. For example, you can:
Spend less time on the phone
Use the speaker option
Use blue tooth technology
Use an earpiece
Use the texting option
Q- What should I do about my children’s exposure?
A- There are no epidemiological studies carried out thus far that have specifically looked at children. However, the same methods for reducing exposures as listed above can be applied to children.
Q - How do wi-fi exposures compare with cell phone exposures?
A - Wi-fi exposures are a small fraction (less than 1%) of radiation received during typical cell phone use. There is no convincing evidence that wi-fi exposures constitute a threat to the health of B.C. residents.
Q – What about electro-magnetic hypersensitivity?
A - A review of 46 blind and double blind studies concluded that despite the belief by sufferers that their symptoms were triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, researchers were unable to confirm a connection between their symptoms and radiation exposure. Repeated experiments have been unable to replicate these phenomena under controlled conditions. While we are not questioning people’s symptoms, there is considerable uncertainty in the medical profession as to their cause.
Q - Where can I go to seek more information?
A – The IARC news release and WHO reviews on radiofrequency exposure can be found at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
In addition, the BC Centres for Disease Control are conducting a further review of published studies and will be issuing a report in Fall 2011.
For more information on wi-fi safety, watch this video from Health Canada
Q. I heard on the news today that there was a highly radioactive water leak at one of the reactors and that workers were injured. Should I be concerned?
No, there is no need to be concerned that this leak will impact us here in B.C. Japanese authorities have reported a water leak at Reactor #3 - water is leaking from the reactor vessel into the basement of the facility. This leak is within the reactor facility and is contained - it has not spread into the environment. It is very concerning for the workers in that building, as several people were exposed to high levels of beta particles, causing skin burns.
The modelling that has been done by the Radiation Protection Branch of Health Canada has taken "worst case" scenarios into consideration. Even if a catastrophic reactor failure were to occur, any radiation that might reach B.C. would be very small and would not pose a health risk to people here in British Columbia.
Guidelines for Tattooing (PDF 89K)
This publication covers informed consent, premises, and operation, preparation, and handling of instruments and equipment, pigments (dyes or inks), infection control, waste disposal, personal service workers, and post-tattooing skin care.
H1N1 Site for Nurses
This website provides BC Nurses (Registered Nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Registered Psychiatric Nurses, and Licensed Practical Nurses) with information and resources to support nursing practice related to H1N1 influenza virus.
H1N1 Site for the Physicians of B.C.
At the request of B.C.’s physicians, this web resource has been established to provide a centralised and ongoing source of current information about the emerging issues surrounding the novel H1N1 flu virus.
H1N1 Site for Pharmacists
This website provides clinical and logistical information about dispensing antiviral medications, information about in-pharmacy infection control and information on antiviral treatment for pharmacy patients.
H1N1 Flu Virus
The H1N1 influenza virus (human swine influenza or human swine flu) is a respiratory disease of humans caused by type A influenza virus. The majority of the H1N1 flu virus cases in British Columbia have been relatively mild and were detected by the Province's robust and responsive public health surveillance system.
New Web Portal helps Canadians to Fight Flu
Canada's provinces and territories and the Public Health Agency of Canada have together provided a website to provide Canadians with one-stop access to information about influenza (the flu) and ways to limit its spread. Visitors to the web portal can find fact sheets on influenza, tips for avoiding infection in more than 10 languages, and links to influenza information campaigns within their home province or territory.
Listeria update from Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Perry Kendall
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Maple Leaf Foods have expanded the previous public warning issued on August 19, 2008 and are now warning the public not to serve or consume any products produced at Maple Leaf's Establishment 97B plant because these products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
The flu is a serious illness that takes its toll
on people in schools, hospitals and other workplaces
every year. Getting the flu shot is a safe and effective
way to protect yourself and others from the flu.
An influenza pandemic may occur when an influenza virus radically changes and can easily infect humans,
and against which people have little or no immunity.
Preparing in advance and knowing
the proper health protection measures can help
safeguard your and your family's health if this
type of event occurs in B.C.
Avian influenza is a contagious viral
infection that can affect all species of birds (chickens,
turkeys, guinea fowl, pet birds and wild birds).
West Nile Virus
West Nile virus (WNV) is a mosquito-borne
virus. In nature it is normally passed between mosquitoes
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
The Ministry of Health and the BC Centre for Disease
Control are currently monitoring the recent cases
of SARS reported in China by the World Health Organization.
Safe drinking water is essential for human health
and survival. It is used for human consumption, food
preparation, or other normal household purposes.