Health Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I think Dr. Sasco has something to say.

[Dr. Annie Sasco]

Yes. I agree with what has also been said from London. It would be unethical to do studies where kids would be exposed and others would not.

On the other hand, I think we could have a systematic recording by groups of pediatricians on the conditions of exposure of a child--for example, with the baby monitors--and try to follow up on which kids have even minor health problems, whether it is the ones who were sleeping close to such a monitor or not.

It is observational studies that could give some idea of short-term effects. The issue of schools, again, can be addressed in part by observational study, as you described. I know I will be told that this is an exceedingly weak design for a study, but, for example, there could be an experimental design with schools being assigned as having or not having Wi-Fi. If one really wanted to have--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Sasco, I'm going to have to interrupt you. Please try to watch the time. You're going to have conclude now.

[Dr. Annie Sasco]

Okay. France has decided in several of the schools not to have Wi-Fi, and also the national public library.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Now we'll go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I've found your testimony quite interesting. I think it's important for us. I have three kids and I think that at the end of the day we're all looking at the safety factor.

As far as EMFs are concerned, I understand they're everywhere now. I have this on my ear. I have my BlackBerry here. There's Wi-Fi. And we have a building that's fully wired.

The WHO launched a large multidisciplinary research effort in 1996 to study the biological effects of radio-frequency emitting devices. Apparently they evaluated over 25,000 articles published over 30 years and concluded that the current evidence doesn't confirm the existence of any negative health effects.

Are the witnesses aware if the WHO's position has changed since the completion of that study?

Dr. Muc, would you be able to comment on that?

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

I'm not aware that it has changed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Can you comment on the study? For me, just looking at it, with 25,000 articles published over 30 years, it does appear quite comprehensive.

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

It really alludes to the statement that I made in my opening comments. The scientific literature that's out there is immense, and the references and so on are available to the IEEE. They're available worldwide. They're available on the Internet now. Anybody who wants to sit and look at all those studies again, which have been reviewed by committees with due diligence, with responsibility, with interest.... The impression one gets is that industry somehow covers everything up and the only study that's valid, somehow, is a public study.

Well, there have been public studies. Various national agencies have mounted studies. There are a couple of prospective studies on the books now. In fact, there's one in Canada. It's a forward-looking study--prospective, which is the best way to get information. The only thing is that it takes a long time to get the results, just as Dr. Sasco was saying, but that's really the best way to do it.

The problem is to get funding for that sort of thing. I would say that in Canada we have a good prospect for that. There's an Ontario component, but there are components across the other provinces, which could include some sort of dosimetry with regard to RF exposure.

These are possibilities, but the issue is funding for it.

In the absence of these kinds of conclusions that I think will be coming along with the studies that are on the books now, I would still say that for the threshold for advancing and advocating changes like those that are being suggested by our colleagues in Europe, by the BioInitiative group, etc., I think it's premature, under the circumstances, to change policies with regard to Wi-Fi, for example, or cellphones. SC-6 stands, in my opinion.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You mentioned the BioInitiative again.

Dr. Habash, you're nodding your head.

Who wrote it? Were they all scientists? Where did the BioInitiative come from?

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

In fact, we have given a reply to the BioInitiative Report.

Also, as was said here, thousands of papers were published during the past 40 or 50 years, the majority with negative results; there were a few studies with some positive results. It depends on the discipline.

I see the BioInitiative as a collective, or a collection of opinions of a few scientists who really have concerns about this issue, but that doesn't reflect the general opinion. In fact, there are other groups, and there are other studies, other reviews, which see that there is not enough evidence. In the majority of areas, there are some concerns in some research areas. They ask or call for further research into those areas: as we say, the effects on brains, the reproductive outcomes, and the hyper-effects on children.

But I would also like to comment on the electromagnetic hypersensitivity issues. This is a very serious issue, but we also have to understand that these are subjective symptoms. I will tell you a story from Malaysia. I witnessed the story. There was a concern from the public about radiation from a cellular station. Members of the public complained about many symptoms. In the end, it was clear that the cellular base station was not operational.

So we have to take into consideration that it is not an issue of biological effects only; in fact, here we are talking about health effects. I will tell you for sure that an electromagnetic field is a force. And for every force, there is an effect. It is not necessarily so that every biological effect leads to a health effect.

Again, here we have an issue of perception. This is an issue of risk: perception of risk and communication of risk. Sometimes we perceive the risk in a way, while other times we communicate the risk in a way. Many issues are involved and we shouldn't rely on a certain study, because that study has its own characteristics, its own environment, and its own objects. In fact, we have to evaluate the whole body of research in order to come to conclusions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Doctor, as you were nodding your head there, I was just wondering if you know if there have been follow-ups on the BioInitiative Report.

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

Yes. In fact, this is the answer from the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Can you summarize it in two sentences?

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

I can give you the report.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

You can give me the whole report?

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

Yes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's great. I appreciate it.

Did you want to comment, too, Dr. Muc?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Muc, would you like to make a quick comment?

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

Yes, if I may. This committee is not a place to look at the technical issues that are associated with information like the example from our colleague from Greece.

It has always been my opinion that there are difficulties in a lot of the in vitro studies that are done, because there is not enough consideration taken for the fact that the actual distribution of energy within the exposure chambers that are being used, be it for cellular or animal studies, or even the human measurements that have been done in the case of some of the military and industrial studies.... There has not been enough consideration given to the non-uniformities in distribution.

But all of us are familiar with the use of a microwave oven, and we know that you have hot spots in a microwave oven. They all have turntables in order to average out the exposure situation. So when there is attributed a tenth of a microwatt per square centimetre to the average exposure level for a given sample, that does not necessarily reflect the individual sensitivity of individual elements within that sample, be that 10,000 cells or whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Muc.

We'll now go into our second round of questions and answers. It's down to a five-minute round.

We're going to begin with shared time of two and a half minutes each for Ms. Neville and Ms. Murray.

Who would like to start?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I will. We'll see whether we're sharing or not. Thank you.

Thanks to all of you for being here, both in person and by video. I am not usually a member of this committee and have just come in for this session, so I've missed the earlier one.

Maybe it's a reflection on me, but I am profoundly confused about what information should be given to the public. I guess what I am most concerned about is Industry Canada. In your comment here this morning, Mr. Dupuis, you said at one point, “I am confident that, through the various initiatives in place, Industry Canada is taking every reasonable measure that it can to ensure all sites in Canada respect Safety Code 6 limits”.

I've just skimmed through the documents that we received from Industry Canada. Again, it's a matter of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand”, as most statements are qualified. What's a parent to do? What's a community to do?

I'm sitting here concerned because in my community there's a telecommunications tower projected to go up very close to where a lot of young people play and are present. I'm sitting here thinking that when I leave here today, I should phone the organization and say, “Don't do it, whatever the benefits are to you financially”. So help me.

[Marc Dupuis]

Thank you, Madam Neville, for that question.

First of all, let me say that the differences you're experiencing between the literature we've supplied and the statements I made this morning are due to the fact that the literature is trying to express the body of evidence out there in terms of whether the limits are safe or not safe, and you've heard a lot of discussion on that today. On that, I cannot pronounce any opinion, because it's Health Canada that has the expertise to determine the levels that are safe or unsafe.

Our role at Industry Canada is to ensure that the apparatus, i.e., a cellphone, for example, or a tower, meets the limits that have been deemed acceptable by Safety Code 6, which was, of course, adopted by Health Canada.

So to respond to your question, we ensure, through all the means at our disposal, that every facility meets Safety Code 6. That is the extent: that we have a mandate and that we have capability to ensure that they meet those limits.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

What is your collaboration, if any, with Health Canada?

[Marc Dupuis]

Our collaboration with Health Canada is mostly with regard to preparing information materials to make sure the public understands the issues at hand. Those materials are the pamphlets and the questions and answers that you have before you, which we provided this morning.