Health Committee on April 29th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I've seen a map of cellphone towers for apartment buildings in my riding; it pretty much blankets the city. I noted that you've said your job is to ensure that the code 6 rules are followed, but to what degree do the cellphone towers take into account other sources of radiation that people living in the apartment buildings will be exposed to, whether it's baby monitors, microwave ovens, or other types of wireless tools that they're using?

My guess is that there's a cumulative effect. Is that taken into account in the codes you're applying?

[Marc Dupuis]

If you'll allow me, Madam Chairperson, I'd like to defer to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Marc Dupuis]

Thank you.

[Peter Hill, Director, Spectrum Management Operations, Department of Industry]

That's a very good question.

When we do our analysis...and we do go out and verify certain sites, certainly higher-risk sites that we feel may approach Safety Code 6 limits. When we do our analysis, we take into account cumulative effects of other radio emitters in the area. Some of them we know about; baby monitors, typically, we wouldn't know about.

That is why we take a prudent approach, which is when it hits a certain level of Safety Code 6.... It depends on the situation, but for example, for, say, 20% of Safety Code 6, we actually go out and take measurements. Our calculations are very conservative and our measurements are always significantly lower.

And to the point--

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Could I clarify something there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No. Your time is up. Thank you.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thermal measurements or just other biological--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It has certainly been a fascinating two days of discussion on this particular topic. I think if I had to summarize what I'm hearing, it's that everyone agrees that decisions should be based on science. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement there. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that we can always benefit from more science in this particular area.

There is some disagreement in terms of the interpretation of the science that's out there, and I do wonder.... Certainly, I'm sitting here, and of course I'm not a scientist, and all the different information that we're getting is a little overwhelming.

There's one thing that I think is important, too, to recognize when we interpret science. I have communities that are very rural and are begging for and craving some of these what they consider to be safety opportunities. I think we need to balance some of that in the equation. When you live on a very main highway and have no telephone access, I think that also needs to be looked at.

For my own curiosity, if you're in a house, for microwave versus telephone and for a child using a cellphone versus texting, are they all at different levels? Perhaps Dr. Habash could answer that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take on that question?

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

Yes. They are all at different levels. It depends on the frequency. Again, it depends on the characteristics of propagation. For microwave or other frequencies, you should also know that these waves are reflected or absorbed by materials.

It involves the attenuation of a signal. If we are talking about extremely low frequency fields, then these fields can penetrate. That is the issue for all TV monitors. Of course, those are issues of concern and some steps even should be taken by users. I personally am of the opinion that the usage of mobile phones should be reduced or the position on the head should change from side to side. This is a source of energy that's very close to your head.

But I am not of the opinion, for example, that exposure limits should be reduced. These are precautionary steps taken by individuals. Again, I am of the opinion that the usage of mobile phones by children should be limited, not only for health concerns, but for habit concerns.

So it depends for the usage of microwave or other sources of energy.

I think you have more comments on this, Dr. Muc.

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

Yes, if I may, just to follow up on that point. I think what Dr. Habash has raised is really an issue of the distinction between a decision based on science and a decision based on social, political, and personal considerations.

If I understand what he said for his own personal use of a cellphone, for example, he would reduce it, but he doesn't believe in changing the standards because there's not evidence to change them. That's where the science part of it is. The other part of it, as I said, is about involves social, political, and personal decisions--choice. And we live in a free country, so communities, I would say, should have the privilege to ban Wi-Fi if they want to, like Lakehead University did. It is a community and it has banned Wi-Fi. They have every right to, not based on science, but just based on their personal considerations.

[Dr. Riadh Habash]

I have only one comment here. We also have to consider the advantage of these facilities. I am from a university, and I know what the advantage is of wireless networks in the universities. So I shouldn't ban it because of certain concerns, but as a person I can reduce my exposure in a way. But they shouldn't be banned.

I'll tell you one thing. Tens of thousands of people are killed every year by car accidents. Nobody complains.

This is a technology. Every technology has two sides. There is the good side and the bad side.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You only have about 30 seconds left, Ms. McLeod, so I think your time has run out. Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the committee. At the last meeting of this committee, I clearly stated that I personally felt the effects of these radio frequencies. When I held my cell phone to my ear too long, I had the impression that my brain was cooking. So I am probably one of those people who are sensitive to that. No one can make me change my mind. I am convinced it has an effect, but I do not know to what extent.

Could you tell me where Canada sits compared to other countries with its Security Code 6? Are there places where the regulations are stricter, without preventing these devices from working properly, as we probably could not do without them now?

How does Canada compare to other countries and are there stricter security codes elsewhere?

Mr. Dupuis, you can probably answer that question.

[Marc Dupuis]

Thank you for your question.

First of all, it depends if you compare acceptable and allowable levels for antennas, for example on base stations, or for mobile devices. With respect to mobile devices such as cellular phones, allowable levels in Canada, as in the United States, are lower, and therefore safer. They are lower, with respect to radiation, than those accepted by the ICNIRP—which you probably heard of last Tuesday—and which have been adopted by most countries in the world, including all European countries. They allow a level of 2 watts per kilogram, whereas Canada only allows a level of 1.6 watts per kilogram. We calculate an average based on 1 gram of tissue, which provides for higher results than those used in Europe, where the average is calculated on 10 grams of tissue. In technical terms, this is called "specific absorption rate". As for antenna towers, levels permitted in Canada are slightly higher than in certain European countries for example.

Furthermore, as my colleague Mr. Hill was saying this morning, actual levels measured in the field are often 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than those allowed by Security Code 6. So, if we were to measure levels here in Ottawa, we would find that in most cases, measurable levels are 1,000, 100,000 or 10,000 times lower than those allowable under Security Code 6.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Therefore, Security Code 6 would be amongst the strictest in the world?

[Marc Dupuis]

Absolutely, as regards portable devices, but they are slightly less strict when it comes to antenna towers.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

And if we wanted to implement even stricter standards, how far could we go without compromising the capabilities of these devices?

[Marc Dupuis]

If we wanted to implement stricter standards for mobile devices... If we were to establish a safety level of half of the current 1.6 watts per kilogram, there would be one problem: we would need special devices made only for Canada. Indeed, Canada would be the only country in the world to have such strict standards, much stricter than other countries. Mobile phone manufacturers, such as Nokia and Ericsson, would have to manufacture devices specifically for Canada and no other country, which would make the cost of these phones prohibitive.

As you know, companies make phones for billions of users all over the world. These suppliers would have to make special phones just for Canada, and they would be less powerful.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

That would mean that our approach has to be global.

[Marc Dupuis]

Absolutely.