Health Canada has completed its update of Safety Code 6 and has hired the Royal Society of Canada to create an "Independent" panel to review its work. Since May, 2013, C4ST has expressed concerns about the existing members’ financial relationships with companies, industry associations and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. In addition, four of the eight Expert Panel members have published material and statements demonstrating predetermined viewpoints that they don’t believe published evidence showing that humans are in danger well below the existing safety threshold published in Safety Code 6. There isn’t any counterbalancing representation on this panel. We have a reasonable apprehension of bias on this panel. We are also concerned that there is not enough panel expertise, at the research level, to truly evaluate the biological effects of wireless radiation at levels well below Safety Code 6. We are concerned that the results are predetermined.
RSC response by Geoffrey Flynn, Chair, Committee on Expert Panels to this exposé was to express regrets that Dr. Krewski resigned, not that he did not follow proper disclosure procedures and to try to cast doubt on the reporter’s credibility. C4ST’s understanding of the process is that there is no evaluation or judgment on disclosed conflicts.
The original July 8, 2013 date was deferred due to “ a large outpouring of interest in this event, making it challenging to organize in the current circumstances.”
RSC Protocols for public consultation were released.
Despite assurances “that your invitation will remain valid for the meeting”, several dozen Canadians were unable to speak to the panel who wished to do so. 3 of the 8 panel members were not in attendance at the public consultation. Due to technical difficulties, many of the presentations were not broadcast. At least one panel member offered to re-present her information, but her offer was not accepted
Electrosensitive individuals either were not able to present in the room since the Wi-Fi was not turned off. The ones that could presented under considerable duress.
The week of Oct. 28th, 2013, two conflicted panel members Dr. Foster and Dr. Moulder publish a review paper that demonstrates their pre-formed opinions continue, leading to continued questions about their objectivity.
Moulder is one of the panel members who has direct financial ties to industry. Under oath, he has admitted to receiving payments totaling “several hundred thousand dollars” testifying on behalf of industry in claims of damages from individuals.
That same week Foster also conducts a seminar explaining how WiFi and Smart meters can only have thermal effects on the human body.
The week of Jan. 13th, our nominee was accepted with a notice that:
On Jan. 31, 2014 a draft of the Expert Panel report would be sent to reviewers
On Feb. 14, 2014 the reviewers’ reports are due (we estimate the document to be approx. 200 pages)