Home Page

Share this:

RSC Review of Safety Code 6 to be Released March 2014


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.

The Safety Code 6 Review Panel is deeply conflicted and should be dissolved and replaced. Send a direct email to RSC President Dr Grise, Chair of Panel Experts Dr Layzell, and SC6 Panel Chair Dr Demers, that Canadians expect and deserve a proper independent Expert Panel review.

Chronology of Events re Royal Society Of Canada’s Review of Safety Code 6 (Click each to view details)

May 2013 - Initial letter to President of The Royal Society of Canada introducing C4ST and alerting Dr Grise to the conflicted panel selected to review Safety Code 6

July 2013 - The RSC Expert Panel Chair for the review of SC6 Daniel Krewski resigns after the Canadian Medical Association Journal publishes an article exposing his conflict of interest regarding a $126,000 contract with Industry Canada on how to deal with the public regarding cellular tower and SC6 concerns.

Initial Letter to President of Royal Society of Canada from C4ST regarding concerns around conflicted panel.

Canadian Medical Association Journal Article on Daniel Krewksi conflict of interest

August 2013 - Geoffrey Flynn, Chair, Committee on Expert Panels “In the interim, the RSC will not otherwise comment further on the work of the Expert Panel on Safety Code 6 until the panel’s final report has been completed, peer-reviewed, and submitted to Health Canada.”

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.

October 28, 2013 - After delays, the Public Consultation to the Panel members was finally held, hundreds applied to speak, 35 were selected. 33 for change, 2 for status quo.

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.

November 8th, 2013 - C4ST submitted our nomination for the peer review process

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)

November 8th, 2013 - C4ST sends an introduction letter to the new panel chair, Dr. Demers, alerting him to the conflicted panel he has inherited.

December 3rd, 2013 - C4ST sends intro letter to new Expert Panel Chair, Dr. Layzell and Dr. Demers expressing “reasonable apprehension of bias” in the panel makeup, as well as recent developments in Toronto where the Board of Health upheld their Prudent Avoidance Policy (100 times more restrictive than SC6 limits)

January 14th, 2014 - C4ST nominee for Peer Review was accepted and is given 2 weeks’ notice to be prepared to review the RSC 200 page draft report with a 2 week deadline for comments.

January 23rd, 2014 - Dr. Layzell’s - Expert Panel Secretary responded that he had “reviewed the process that was used to assemble this panel….I continue to stand behind the panel’s membership as being both balanced and credible.”

Details and Events
Leading up to the
Review of Safety Code 6

Scientists speak out against the RSC's report reviewing Safety Code 6

Scientists Speak Out

RSC's report on Safety Code 6 review is released... just a rubber stamp


Learn more about Safety Code 6 and what it means to Canadians

Safety Code 6

See the conflicts present on the RSC Panel
Send your thoughts to the politicians and officials involved


Full Details of Oct 28th incl Media Coverage

Media Coverage

Presentations to The Royal Society of Canada on the Review of Safety Code 6

RSC Public Consultation

Send A Letter - RSC March Review of SC6

The Safety Code 6 Review Panel is deeply conflicted and should be dissolved and replaced. Send a direct email to RSC President Dr Grise, Chair of Panel Experts Dr Layzell, and SC6 Panel Chair Dr Demers, that Canadians expect and deserve a proper independent Expert Panel review.

Select Recipients

Explain why...
  • Safety Code 6 is critical to protecting Canadians and must be updated by this panel
  • You are concerned that the current panel is not independent
  • The panel should include scientists and medical professionals who believe that there are harmful effects of radiation levels less than SC6
  • The panel should include actual research expertise regarding the biological effects of wireless radiation
  • Given the critical importance of this panel, the Royal Society of Canada should be tightening, not loosening its conflict of interest standards

drag to expand

In order to use this tool to submit messages to the officials responsible for this tower, you must agree to become a member of Canadians For Safe Technology. In doing so, we will be able to keep you updated by e-mail on breaking news and calls to action as they occur. At any time, you will have the option of removing yourself from our distribution list.

RSC Expert Panel Guidelines

 The Royal Society of Canada is in clear conflict of their own guidelines for panel selection

ExpertPanel ManualofProceduralGuidelines RSC