[Click Below Statements for Supporting Quotes]
[Click Below Statements for Supporting Quotes]
(Click to view the summary and the studies in question)
Name of first author, title, journal and country of first author (in brackets)
(Question) HESA: [page 16, time:1.03:23] “Please tell me in plain language; can you assure me that it’s safe to put my cellular phone to my head for an hour a day? And I want to know how many hours it’s safe to do that for. Can you tell me it’s safe to have a baby monitor a few feet away from my two-year-old granddaughter’s head for eight hours a night? Can you tell me it’s safe for my daughter to carry, in her bra, year after year? Will it harm her? Can you tell me is it safe for kindergarten children to have powerful Wi-Fi antenna five feet over their heads for eight hours a day? Or should we simply put jacks into schools and take Wi-Fi out of schools as other countries have done, as France has done? I’d like to know if anybody who has spoken thus far in support of Safety Code 6, as it exists, wants to put their reputation on the line and tell me that all those uses are safe and those people will never come to harm from cell phone radiation or EMR?”
(Answer) Health Canada:“I think what I’m confident saying is that if people use devices according to the manufacturers’ instructions, and there are instructions about keeping, like cellphones, a certain distance from the body and things like that. I’m confident that they do not represent a risk to Canadians.”
(Question) HESA: "So despite everything… the study done in Sweden that showed a four-‐times increase in the chances of getting brain cancer on the side of a head you use your cellphone for a long-‐term continuous use, despite that you still think… do you think that would be safe? Or do you think they’re all wrong—that their studies are useless and not worth paying attention to?"
(Answer) Health Canada:“Yes. So, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2010 and 2011 did a study on this. I was actually a member of that panel. We looked at all of the data. There were epidemiologists, there were medical doctors, and there were people who specialized in animal studies, in vitro studies, looking at all the various lines of evidence to determine what is the scientific basis for a potential cancer risk with RF fields.”
C4ST: note that the reference is to the 2010 and 2011 timeframe. The recent studies from Sweden and France were peer-reviewed studies published in 2013 and 2014.
(Question) HESA: “Did the panel do an extensive review of the scientific evidence”
(Answer) Health Canada: [page 12, time:51:11] “…so that was indeed what we did”
C4ST: [page 24, Section 3.3 of the Royal Society Report] “The Panel’s mandate was to examine Health Canada’s proposed changes in light of recent expert reviews regarding the adverse health effects of exposure to RF energy. It was not expected to do a comprehensive analysis of the literature.”
MP Cathy McLeod: [page 10, time:43:49] “I would like to actually ask that we ensure that the review of Safety Code 6 done by the Royal Society be tabled as part of our study, because I think it was a really critical piece of what we asked out of the last Committee.”
C4ST: We support the recommendation for an independent review. Unfortunately, Health Canada did not obtain an independent review.
In a March 21, 2012 memo from Health Canada’s ADM, discovered through an Access to Information request. Health Canada: Stated “The research provided does not require extensive information gathering and review; Health Canada has prepared an accompanying rationale document…”
Health Canada also suggested who the “independent” panel members should be, as well as stating “public meetings or input would not likely provide any additional value.” Click here for details.
On May 23, 2013, the lack of independence of the Royal Society panel was highlighted to RSC chair Dr. Grise. Click here for details.
After the resignation of the panel chair Dr. Krewski due to an undisclosed conflict, another letter was sent to the new panel chair, Dr. Demers. Click here for details.
Feb 24th, 2015 Motion brought forward to HESA committee by Liberal Health Critic Dr Hedy Fry amended and carried.
March 13th, 2015 Health Canada releases severely flawed 2015 version of Safety Code 6 despite HESA investigations about to commence.
March 24th, 2015 Day 1 of HESA hearings investigating Safety Code 6 took place (see below for details)
March 26th, 2015 "It was agreed, — That, notwithstanding the motions adopted Tuesday, February 24, 2015, the Committee hear witnesses concerning Safety Code 6 on Tuesday, April 21, and consider a draft report of its study of scopes of practice on Thursday, April 23, 2015."