• Andrew Adams, Health Canada: (1540) “Health Canada did consider all studies that were considered to be both in scope and of sufficient quality for inclusion in our risk assessment. While it is true that some of these studies report biological or adverse health effects of RF fields at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6, I want to emphasize that these studies are in the minority and they do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area.”
• Health Canada document: “Analysis of 140 studies submitted by C4ST during Public Comment Period on Safety Code 6.” Lists 36 studies with “sufficient quality for inclusion in Risk Analysis” in the following categories: Cancer is linked in 6 studies, brain/nervous system impacts in 13, biochemical disruption in 16 and 7 show development and/or learning behaviour impacts. Click here for details.
• Dr. Prato, member of Royal Society expert panel: [page 4, time:17:08] “So this is clear, non-thermal effects of RF within the range of Safety Code 6 safety. So, now we are getting more and more literature which suggests that very weak fields below the limits set by Safety Code 6 can have biological effects”

• Dr. Martin Blank: (1710) “My papers have been published as well. The fact that they have been ignored, that's on the other side of the ledger. These guys don't want to hear it. Why? You may inquire into that as well, because that's an interesting question. The fact is that they have ignored it.”
• Dr. Meg Sears: (1644-50) “If a review is not well conducted, it is subject to bias and incorrect conclusions…The reviews of health and frequencies covered by Safety Code 6 that I have examined, including many of the authoritative reviews relied upon by Health Canada, are lacking salient features of systematic reviews... They have also captured but a fraction of the literature, according to what's referenced, with organizations referring to the validity of one another's reviews…Systematic reviews are collaborative. They're transparent. Certainly these processes with Health Canada leave a lot to be desired. Systematic reviews address biases.
  
  You can only build upon previous reviews that are of high quality. Without previous high-quality reviews to build upon, we have to go back to that 50 years of data. What we have currently is a bit like that telephone game in which messages get mixed up as they're half-heard while they are whispered to one another around the table.
  
  Health Canada must systematically access, assess, and act upon all the science from scratch. It needs specific tools as well as methodological and library expertise to accomplish this.”

• MP Christine Moore: (1610) [page 9, time:40:32] “People have to go looking for the information themselves. So there is no awareness program in place to educate the whole population. For example, we’re not sending messages to youth to warn them not to carry their cellphones in their pockets, for example, or not to place it directly against their skin.”
• Andrew Adams, Health Canada:“We don't have any programs to educate young people and families about the effects of electromagnetic fields, for instance”

• MP Terence Young: (1610) “…The two at the bottom are the lowest levels. They are Russia and Switzerland. China and Italy also have extremely low levels. Had they been included, it would have told a significantly different story. In fact, that's 1.2 billion people who are covered by very low levels, well below the levels in Safety Code 6.”
  Click here to see the “fact” sheet Health Canada Submitted to the 2015 HESA Committee.

• Andrew Adams, Health Canada: (1530) “When developing the exposure limits in the revised Safety Code 6, departmental scientists considered all peer-reviewed scientific studies, including those pertaining to both thermal and non-thermal, and employed a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy”
• C4ST: In a Quebec Superior Court on 13 Feb 2013, Health Canada Scientist and lead author of Safety Code 6, Dr. James McNamee stated that Safety Code 6 accounts only for “thermal effects”. Click here for the full testimony.

• MP Christine Moore: (1610) “When it comes to the industry, have you undertaken specific studies on the cumulative effect of several devices?"
• Andrew Adams, Health Canada:“As you said, a home has a number of radiofrequency sources—Wi-Fi networks, cellphones and several other devices. The limits established in Safety Code 6 apply to all sources of radiation. So all devices must respect the Safety Code 6 limits. However, I'm not sure if any studies have been carried out to determine the electromagnetic field level in a home with several sources.”

• MP Christine Moore: (1610) “Regarding complaints, is there a place where people who think they are having an adverse reaction to radiofrequencies or health care professionals who think their patients may be having those issues could report their experience?”
• Andrew Adams, Health Canada: "We already have a consumer product safety system. We can receive complaints about any consumer products, including cellphones, through that system. When people have problems related to cellphones or to electromagnetic fields created by cellphones, they can use that existing service.”
• C4ST: The tool referenced above does not meet the necessary requirements. Health Canada already has a system in place for the adverse reactions to health products. “Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database” that could be applied to track reactions to wireless devices.
  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/databasdon/index-eng.php

• Hon. Hedy Fry: (1620) “Do you not feel that it is important to have some kind of database that looks at clusters, that is reporting clusters, or that physicians may be asked to look at any kind of possible cause and effect on new cancers among people based on the frequency of their cellphone use, the cumulative effect, and age-related use? Has that been done? Has Health Canada tried to set up such a database or reporting system of some kind?"
• Andrew Adams, Health Canada: "I would note first of all that health care is a shared responsibility, as the members know. Actual health care delivery and treatment dealing with people who have cancer largely falls to the provinces. Certainly both levels of government can legislate when it comes to health, but when it comes to what the provinces are doing as far as cancer epidemiology is concerned, I can't comment. From Health Canada's perspective, I'm not aware of databases that Health Canada has established to look at cancers and perhaps clusters, but I think there is a question of jurisdiction here that would have to be considered as well.”
• Hon. Hedy Fry: (1625) “With due respect, I disagree with you. I think when you look at drugs and look at setting up drug reporting systems, Health Canada does that. This is a federal responsibility, to collect information across the country on data that is coming out on drug use, the adverse effects of the use of drugs, etc. … Since it is the Government of Canada that okays and sets up the whole safety code and the use of cellphones, the setting up of cell towers, etc., I would think it incumbent upon the federal government to collect that kind of data, because as we well know, this is a very large country, and very different provinces have very different usage in numbers of cell towers, etc. I would think this is a real role for the federal government, and I wonder why, if one could do it on the adverse effect of drugs, one couldn't do it on the adverse effect of the use of certain technologies. I think it's a real question. The federal government is responsible for all Canadians; the provinces are only responsible for their provinces. If we're looking at safety and health—because we are looking at the interaction between safety and health—it would seem to me to be like falling off a log if we didn't do this very important, and common sense, thing to want to do.”
• Andrew Adams, Health Canada:“I think that what you're suggesting would be fairly complex to implement. I understand the reporting of adverse events associated with drugs to the federal government, and I think it makes sense when the federal government is approving these drug products.” I'm not a physician and so can't comment from a strong knowledge base, but there are many types of cancers. How would they be associated with a particular cause? I think there are many details associated with what you're suggesting that would make it a very complicated proposal to implement, but it's certainly an interesting suggestion.”

• MP Christine Moore: (1710) “In your opinion, should we establish a specific limit for exposure to radio frequency for pregnant women?”
• Dr. Martin Blank:“I think pregnant women deserve a special category. The thing is that they may be classified with the rest of the adults, but the growing fetus in utero, although it's a small target, nevertheless is a far more important target. The fact is that any danger that occurs there will be magnified many fold. I think pregnant women really need a separate category, and a far more protective one.”

HESA – 54 Testimony – Mr. Mr. Bernard Lord; time: 1715

What we expect—if we want to use numbers to scare people—is that in the next five years data consumption in Canada will grow by 700%.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski; time: 1648

According to year 2000 documents of the European Union on the precautionary principle, there are three criteria that need to be fulfilled in order to implement the precautionary principle. All of them are currently fulfilled[FC1] .

Proponents of the precautionary principle need to understand that precaution does not equal prevention of use of wireless technology. Requirements to develop more efficient, less radiation-emitting technology, and further biomedical research on the radiation effects, will create new knowledge through research and will create jobs in the research and technology. Implementation of the precautionary principle will not prevent technological developments. Claims by some that the implementation of the precautionary principle will cause economic stagnation are unfounded.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski; time: 1649

The precautionary principle was developed just for such situations where scientific uncertainty with concomitant indications of possible harm requires society to wait for more scientific evidence. Saying, “Better to be safe than sorry” applies here.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1700-05

I would say the evidence on the damaging effects of cellphone and other wireless radiation is as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence on climate change, which I've reviewed as a member of the IPCC.

The trash-talking babies with the cellphones, which looked really cute, is a horrifying idea for many reasons, which pediatricians and developmental neuropsychiatrists talk about as well.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski; time: 1733

There is always the fact that people using regular cellphones, like you and me who buy them from a shop, assume that they're buying a safe phone off the shelf because the government is watching this. If after 10 years of using this cellphone I'm increasing my risk of getting brain cancer, something is wrong there. The safety standards are not protecting me.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Riina Bray;

The EMF phenomenon has increased in intensity in our society from 10-6 [0.000001] microwatts per meter squared (the natural background level for our very recent ancestors) to 107 [10,000,000] microwatts/m2 in present day. This is an increase of ten million million times. This should be alarming.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1700-05

I would say the evidence on the damaging effects of cellphone and other wireless radiation is as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence on climate change, which I've reviewed as a member of the IPCC.

I would further point out that there is advice inside the phone that tells you this, if you know how to find it.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Anthony Miller; time: 1615

…one of the things that has been clearly identified is that the brain cancers, the gliomas, the malignant brain cancers, are occurring in the position in the brain where physics demonstrates the radiation from a cellphone placed to the ear actually focuses. I think it's extremely clear and it's been very well documented.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Anthony Miller; time: 1535

One of the most important, I believe, was a study in France, a large case controlled study, which found a doubling of risk of glioma, which is the most malignant form of brain tumour, after two years of exposure to cell phones, and after five years five times the risk. They also identified the fact that in those who lived in urban environments, where there are probably a number of other carcinogens that could impact upon brain tumours, the risk was even higher

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Anthony Miller; time: 1535

There are now seven case reports in all of women who have developed unusual breast cancers in the exact position where they kept cell phones in their bras. These are unusual tumours. They're multi-focal which means they occur in several places. They seem to mirror where the cell phone was being kept. The radiation from the cell phone seems to have increased in these women the risk, which they presumably already had, of developing breast cancer. They were all relatively young women. It is a most unusual occurrence which must concern us greatly.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Martha Herbert; time: 1635/1640

Radiation from cellphones and other sources penetrates deeper into the heads of children, which leads to persistent stress on the cells in the brain, and over time, more and more serious problems can develop.

The use of cellphones in children under 20 can result in a fivefold increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma, and exposure in utero and from birth is huge.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Anthony Miller; time: 1610

I think there should be much greater caution in relation to exposure to children because of what we've already discussed. Their cells are developing much more quickly. Devices such as that which Dr. Havas has demonstrated I think should be banned.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Magda Havas; time: 1610

We have precedent-setting. When it comes to water quality, the nitrogen levels in drinking water are actually based on protecting infants, they're not based on protecting adults. I think that's what Safety Code 6 guidelines should be based on: protecting the most sensitive people within our population.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Ann-Marie Nicole; time: 15:44

People had no idea that baby monitors emitted some kind of radio frequency. They put the baby monitor next to the child, which would be a normal thing that you would want to do with a baby monitor. Then they were shocked to realize that was emitting something that could potentially have some impact on a child. They felt essentially deceived both by the product manufacturer and the government in part because they don't understand what RF is or how the technology exists.

I'm sure these people are not alone, and as a result we are essentially breeding—if you think about risk-perception research—a whole group of people who are suddenly very distrustful of both the government and the manufacturers for not telling them what's actually in the product and how it emits.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1700-05

Samsung, in its insert, says a cellphone is not a toy. It would be good for that information to get more broadly distributed, getting the information out of the phones and onto them as labels.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1640

Then on the bottom left [FC2] you see an indication of damage to DNA, specifically the DNA on the mitochondria of the sperm—the mitochondria are the engines of the sperm…The exposed sperm have almost four times more damage, as measured by standard laboratory tests conducted, again, by the equivalent of the National Institutes of Health in Australia.

My colleague Stan Glantz, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, has concluded that based on all of the evidence—and I'm just showing you one study here[FC3] —cellphones do, in fact, damage sperm, and they do it at a level that does not produce heat. So when Safety Code 6 repeatedly said there were no proven effects without heat, that did not include these studies. I think this is a very big omission, and I would think all of you here would understand that we have to protect sperm if we want to protect the continuation and the health of the species.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1640

This study again [FC4] shows a significant increase in damage to the sperm that had been exposed to the laptop as opposed to the control sperm. These are very important results.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1645

If you look at the testes, which they did here, you see the normal testes—that nice, round, regular barrier. That's what we need. We need cells to be intact, to have a nice membrane around them. Cellphone radiation, as Dr. Herbert just said very eloquently, can damage membranes. It can disrupt the integrity of the cell. The damage test, as you see on the right[FC5] , comes from the animals that were exposed; the ones on the left were not.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1645

What we're seeing here are alterations in DNA and membrane damage caused by prenatal exposure to cellphones. We don't know what's behind this epidemic of autism—we don't—but certainly this is an important hypothesis that needs to be fully explored and can be done.

The next slide [FC6] shows the results of Dr. Hugh Taylor's work at Yale, which I know that Dr. Herbert is quite aware of. That study found that prenatally exposed animals produced offspring with significant behavioural problems, as measured by standard assays; essentially, a form of hyperactivity in the animals. We talked about Dr. Suleyman Kaplan's work on the brain; this may be showing you the consequences of that.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Ann-Marie Nicole; time: 15:46

In terms of risk communication overall, people want more education. Perhaps this would be labelling on products, or a basic primer that a cellphone is not like a normal phone. People don't even realize that cordless phones—your home cordless phone—emit RF. I believe that people have the right to be informed of what they are exposed to regardless of whether or not it's at a level that can cause them something like a thermal heating effect.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Ann-Marie Nicole; time: 16:15

We need labelling. We need awareness. We need government leadership. People aren't necessarily going to believe what a manufacturer says by themselves, because they're trying to sell you something. Some form of labelling and better awareness about what's in products—particularly products in the home and ones you keep close to your body, where we know exposure is higher—is merited and should be considered.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Devra Davis; time: 1700-05

I would say the evidence on the damaging effects of cellphone and other wireless radiation is as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence on climate change, which I've reviewed as a member of the IPCC.

I would further point out that there is advice inside the phone that tells you this, if you know how to find it.

Samsung, in its insert, says a cellphone is not a toy. It would be good for that information to get more broadly distributed, getting the information out of the phones and onto them as labels.

The World Health Organization has concluded that if you use the devices according to the limits, it is safe.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Riina Bray;

As a physician, educator, advocate and health care leader, I feel physicians are seriously lacking in the fundamentals in the science of EMFs from a physical science, technological and biological standpoint. They need to become aware of EMF sources and how the characteristics of this radiation impact the body. They need to understand the condition of EHS which affects about 3% of the population severely, and how this condition is related to other co-existing medical conditions.

HESA – 57 Testimony – Dr. Anne-Marie Nicol; time: 1540

And one of the recommendations that I feel is prudent—that Dr. Bray has also discussed—is that we need a place for people to go and discuss their symptoms or the constellations of symptoms. Here in B.C., we have what are called “complex chronic disease clinics.” I know in Ontario, we have environmental health clinics.

I think these are very important places for people to both be treated and to start to collect data for surveillance. As an epidemiologist, I believe it’s important that we understand what people are exposed to or their symptoms, so that we can at least come up with an overall sense of what’s going on in this country.

Currently, that data is not being collected. And in fact, we allow these people to be shunted from one specialist to another, where they increasingly frustrated and become incredibly vulnerable to non-­‐medical interventions. So I think as a society, we need to be doing a better job of addressing these people who appear to be very seriously impacted by this.

HESA – 58 Testimony – Dr. Magda Havas;

Doctors are not taught in medical schools about electrosmog, as it is a relatively recent problem, nor are they taught how to diagnose electrohypersensitivity. For them, this illness does not exist.