Evidence of meeting #13 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was studies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
That would mean that we have to all agree. We also would need for technicians to improve their methods. Researchers who study the effects of radiation on health need to agree on a protocol to undertake studies which would provide data that we could use—
10:25 a.m.
Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, As an Individual
Madam Chairman, may I make a comment?
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, As an Individual
Most of what has been said today is concerned with the power levels and alleged heating effects, which most people now who are worried about non-thermal effects don't think are important.
What may be more important is the modulation of the signal; that is, the way the signal strength rises and falls as the digital waves are transmitted. It is that which people think disturbs cell membranes and causes some of the effects that we are seeing, like loss of fertility. It's not so much the strength of the signal, but the way in which it is modulated.
10:25 a.m.
Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, As an Individual
I'll repeat: a nice test for this is on the viability of sperm, because it's very relevant. Anything that damages sperm damages the whole human race. Sperm are particularly sensitive because they are haploid, which means they have only one set of genes, and they are unable to repair doubled-stranded DNA breaks.
10:30 a.m.
Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, As an Individual
Because the normal way in which a double-stranded break is repaired is to cut out the damaged section and replace it with the corresponding piece from the homologous chromosome.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Doctor.
I have to go to Ms. Davidson now. She might continue this line of questioning; I don't know, but thank you for your comments.
Ms. Davidson.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much to everyone who has presented to us this morning. It certainly has been an interesting discussion.
I want to go back to a question that my colleague asked about the World Health Organization's multidisciplinary research effort that was done in 1996. Apparently it studied the biological effects of radio-frequency emitting devices. We've had some discussion on that already. My question is for Dr. Goldsworthy and Dr. Johansson.
Both of you have said that we need biologically based standards rather than thermal standards. In Canada's Safety Code 6, have you seen anything that contravenes or contradicts the study done by the World Health Organization on the biological effects?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Dr. Johansson, could you try that, and then Dr. Goldsworthy?
Can you hear us, Dr. Johansson?
10:30 a.m.
Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, As an Individual
Yes. It was a little bit hard to hear the question, but if I understand correctly, the question was about biologically based standards.
You have to understand that what you are talking about are technical standards based upon thermal heating effects in the acute stage measured in fluid-filled plastic dolls. It has nothing to do with the kind of bioeffects that are seen, very, very far below the ICNIRP values or Safety Code 6 values, and most likely you need some other form of measure.
I would rather bounce the ball back to you and say that since I am one of the lousy authors of the BioInitiative Report--
10:30 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:30 a.m.
Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, As an Individual
--you should really read what the whistle-blowers tell you. If we are wrong, which I hope we are, because we are part of the mental fire brigade, and I want it to be a false alarm, of course, but I think several of the speakers have said....
And Canada, by all means, you are so very rich, you know. You don't any need any economic support from the industry; you can give independent money, give it to the whistle-blowers and independent scientists, because if they are wrong, they will prove themselves wrong very quickly.
As Andrew Goldsworthy said, pinpoint some critical studies--for instance on egg cells, as Dimitris told us, and on sperm cells--because if they are destroyed, then you won't have Health Canada in 50 or 100 years' time.
I think it's very important for Health Canada to set up questions. I don't see them at all; I don't see what you want to do.
My summary of today is that it feels very much that at least the people present in Canada right now want to take a chance on children and the future just for a toy. If I am wrong, I am very, very happy, but please let us look at these studies. Also, remember that you can never, ever outbalance a study showing an effect with studies that don't show an effect; you can only outbalance them with studies that are exact replications, showing and proving why the first study was wrong, and such replications are not around.
The replications that are around strongly support the conclusion that the current standards are obsolete and need to be revised, and actually I didn't say that from the very beginning; it was the European Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, As an Individual
I would agree very much with Dr. Johansson on this, but I wouldn't be too depressed if I were someone in the cellphone industry, because I think there are ways in which the modulation system can be changed so that it wouldn't have these ill effects.
I have put it into the material that I sent you. Essentially it's a method of modulation that makes the cells “think” that the signal is unmodulated and relatively harmless. It requires a bit of ingenuity on behalf of the engineers, but you could make the things a lot safer than they are now.
I'd like to know what the--
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'm sorry, but our time is up, Dr. Goldsworthy.
Dr. Johansson, I know you want to make a comment. Perhaps I'll give the question over to Dr. Bennett, then. Do you want to continue with this, Dr. Bennett?
10:35 a.m.
Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, As an Individual
I was also just going to comment that it seems that the members of Health Canada do not quite understand the precautionary principle, which is outlined in the Rio Declaration. You should read it carefully, because it clearly says that minority findings should be fully reported and considered and that uncertainty should be the basis to take action. Action would mean a moratorium, safety precautions, or whatever.
The interesting thing is to look seriously, with adult eyes, on the scientific literature, and take away the studies that don't show an effect, because they are, as you probably all know, of no interest in risk analysis. All the good car journeys would never impinge in risk analysis regarding car safety, for instance. If you look at these studies and really boil down the facts and ask yourself what kind of safety level you would have instead of an exposure standard, today that would be, in thermal measurement, zero watts per kilogram.
10:35 a.m.
Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, As an Individual
Finally, I would add that I have heard over and over again that the levels of exposure are low. In the room you're sitting in right now, just from the third generation mobile telephony, compared to the natural background that has been around for billions of years in Canada, you are sitting in levels that are approximately one million billion times above natural background. There you have your question mark: are we really built for a microwave life at such extreme levels? From the size, the question is very clear cut: no, we are not built for that, and we are not talking about a minor reduction.
Just a few days ago I submitted a paper to a major American journal. In it, we point to the reductions in public exposure levels. Taking into consideration the future, the kids, teenagers, the elderly, and the adults, the levels must be lowered dramatically.
And if I were Health Canada, I wouldn't bother about the industry. I can tell you that they will come up with new technologies in some form. As a Swede, I hope that it will be Ericsson--
