Evidence of meeting #12 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.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Order. Good morning, everybody.
I want to give a warm welcome to all our guests this morning. I'm Joy Smith, the chair of this committee. We're very pleased to have you here and to hear what you have to say this morning.
The presentations will be roughly five minutes each, and I'm going to be watching the time very closely.
Ms. Murray.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to start with a point of order on the procedure for the hearings on this issue. Industry Canada regulates certain devices that concern this—
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Well, we requested that they come here and they refused. So I'm asking the chair to intervene on that.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
That's not a point of order.
We will now continue.
Could we start with the Department of Health?
Ms. Pieterson.
9:05 a.m.
Beth Pieterson Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
Good morning, everybody.
Chair, members of the committee, it's my pleasure to be here today to speak to Health Canada's position on the impact of microwaves on human health.
We've heard concerns from some communities of stakeholders about the possibility of radio frequency electromagnetic energy emissions—or microwaves—from cell towers and wireless technologies posing hazards to the health of Canadians, including children.
While the responsibility for the regulation of cell towers and wireless technologies lies with Industry Canada, Health Canada, acting within the authority of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, has thoroughly evaluated relevant peer-reviewed scientific evidence and conducted in-house studies, which, to date, do not support the notion that microwave emissions from cell towers and wireless technologies pose hazards to the health of Canadians.
In fact, as recently as October 2009, Health Canada published a revision to Canada's guideline, called Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy, commonly known as Safety Code 6. This document sets the recommended limits for safe human exposure to electromagnetic energy from various devices, including cellphones, Wi-Fi equipment, and cellphone towers. Industry Canada has incorporated the guidance in Safety Code 6 in its regulations for these devices.
Canada's revision of Safety Code 6 followed a thorough evaluation of the scientific evidence and literature on the effects of radio frequency energy on biological systems. Health Canada reviewed scientific evidence from animal, cell culture, and epidemiological studies carried out worldwide and conducted its own studies, which are published in peer-reviewed journals. Both the quality of the individual studies and the consistency of observed effects across laboratories were key in evaluating all the study results.
On the basis of such analyses, Health Canada established limits for human exposure that are well below the threshold for any potential harm. The limits recommended for general public exposure were designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, if exposed on a continual basis. Health Canada's determination that there are no health effects associated with radio frequency exposure at levels below the specified limit is supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies, which are verified on an ongoing basis. Our Canadian exposure limits are comparable to those in other jurisdictions, including the United States and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the standard adopted by most European countries.
Furthermore, Canada's guideline development process is consistent with the guidance outlined in the World Health Organization's framework for developing health-based electromagnetic frequency standards. In other words, we also follow the process that's prescribed by the WHO.
Recently, a report cited by electromagnetic advocates, entitled the BioInitiative Report, suggests that regulatory authorities should apply precautionary approaches for sources of electromagnetic frequency exposure and apply much more stringent limits. Health Canada has concerns about this report. It does not contain any new scientific data; it excludes, in fact, numerous studies; and it contains internal consistencies. Having reviewed the report, it is the opinion of Health Canada that there are insufficient grounds to revise our views on the electromagnetic frequency health risk assessment at this time.
The precautionary approach is a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, adverse health effects. Health Canada, as with other departments and many regulatory agencies worldwide, frequently applies the precautionary principle to underpin risk-related decisions. When conducting an assessment, data available in the scientific literature are considered, including data generated by Health Canada scientists; evaluations by other jurisdictions; external panel conclusions, if they are available; as well as information submitted to the Government of Canada during the information-gathering phase of an assessment. The assessments focus on effects that scientists consider most relevant for human health.
Based on such an evaluation and Health Canada's application of the precautionary principle, the department will take action if required. But the precautionary principle is used when there is only some evidence and the evidence is not conclusive. In the case of electromagnetic frequency, Health Canada's position is that there is sufficient evidence to show that the recommended levels of exposure in Safety Code 6, the Health Canada guideline, will not cause harm to health.
In conclusion, the evidence to support a change in Health Canada's electromagnetic frequency emissions requirements has not presented itself, nor has it been demonstrated in the scientific community. Health Canada regularly works with varying degrees of evidence in applying risk-based approaches to assist with decision-making related to the promotion and protection of the health and safety of Canadians. As a department, we do not hesitate to act should the evidence or potential risks weigh in favour of a particular action.
Thank you.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Ms. Pieterson.
Now we'll go to the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association with Bernard Lord, president and chief executive officer, and with Marc Choma, who will assist him.
Mr. Lord.
9:10 a.m.
Bernard Lord President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee this morning.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning to talk about this important issue. I just want to tell you a few things about the CWTA. We've given you a copy of our slide deck so you can follow.
The CWTA is the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, and it is the authority on wireless telecommunications issues in Canada. The association represents over 180 wireless service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other suppliers in Canada. We champion the interests of over 23 million Canadians who use wireless services for convenience, productivity, business, and safety. We bring together the industry on key social issues, such as the enhanced 911 service, Mobile Giving Canada, our code of conduct, wireless number portability, Recycle My Cell--which is our national recycling program--and TextEd.ca.
Wireless is an essential part of our lives. The industry itself is responsible and proactive. We make our communities safer. We help our families and friends stay connected. We enhance our cultural and social lives. Wireless also creates new jobs and opportunities, increases business productivity and competitiveness, and generates new investments.
The wireless industry in Canada is fully compliant with the rules and regulations that are set by the Government of Canada. The wireless industry is in full compliance with the federal government's electromagnetic field, or EMF, emissions safety standards, standards, which are followed scrupulously. EMF emissions of cellular phones and antennas are strictly regulated by Industry Canada, based on Health Canada's Safety Code 6. The wireless industry fully complies with these regulations.
Health effect studies of EMFs have been ongoing for decades. To date there is no convincing scientific evidence of adverse health effects from exposures to EMF at levels below the limits outlined in Health Canada's Safety Code 6. Again, for exposure below the safety limits set by the science-based EMF exposure standards, including Health Canada's Safety Code 6, no adverse effects have been proven through credible, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. The wireless industry does not set the standard. I want to be clear on this point. Industry Canada enforces these standards based on Health Canada's Safety Code 6.
So it is clear that the Canadian industry adheres to the standards set by the Canadian government.
There have been studies ongoing about the potential impacts of EMF. For instance, the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology of the Danish Cancer Society in Copenhagen tracked 16 million people over a 30-year span in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. This is an important study, because it tracks the rate of brain tumours over a prolonged period of time.
This a quote from their report:
Our finding that brain tumor incidence rates were either stable, decreased, or continued a gradual increase that started before the introduction of mobile phones is consistent with mobile phone use having no observable effect on brain tumor incidence in this period.
This is their own conclusion.
As well,
Although mobile phone use has frequently been proposed as a risk factor for brain tumors, neither a biological mechanism to explain this association nor the etiology of brain tumors is known. Mobile phone use in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden increased sharply in the mid-1990s.
This was another conclusion from their report.
There are questionable conclusions from questionable studies. The health committee's study of wireless safety should be guided by actual science and not by unsupported conjecture.
We firmly believe it is essential to establish public policies that are in everyone's best interests. The Government of Canada and the committee examining these issues must base their decisions on the tested and peer-reviewed science.
There are some reports, such as the BioInitiative Report that purport to demonstrate adverse effects. However, the findings in this report are not supported by the vast majority of other scientific studies on this topic around the world. The conclusions drawn by the authors of the BioInitiative Report are not representative of the massive body of evidence emanating from the international scientific community.
Here's a quote:
The opinions expressed by the authors of the BioInitiative report are not consistent with the conclusions drawn from the broader base of scientific literature reviewed by Health Canada or a large number of other national and international standards bodies....
This was a response by the Minister of Health to a question in November 2008.
As well, the minister went on to say:
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 takes into account all possible biological and/or health effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields, including short-term heating effects, non-thermal effects and/or long- term effects. While some European municipalities have adopted more stringent limits, these recommendations are based upon socio-political considerations.
Further, the minister also went on to say:
It is true that there are some “outlier” reports and some scientists which express a “minority” opinion with respect to the safety of low-level RF field exposures. However, it is important to point out that the vast majority of studies and scientists in this field do not consider low-level RF field exposures...to cause any adverse health effects. There are numerous scientific reviews on this issue by independent scientists and by government institutions around the world which share this scientific consensus.
This was also a response by the Minister of Health in May 2008.
Other governments around the world have provided reactions to the BioInitiative Report. The European Commission says that the report is “written in an alarmist and emotive language and whose arguments have no scientific support from well-conducted EMF research”.
In Australia they said about the BioInitiative Report that, “As it stands it merely provides a set of views that are not consistent with the consensus of science, and it does not provide an analysis that is rigorous enough to raise doubts about the scientific consensus.”
And we can go to the Netherlands and their conclusion, that the BioInitiative Report “is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge”.
Or we can go to Germany:
The BfS [German Federal Office for Radiation Protection] conducted a preliminary review of the so-called “BioInitiative Report” immediately after its release and concluded that it had clear scientific shortcomings. In particular, it has undertaken to combine the health effects of low- and high-frequency fields that are not technically possible. The overwhelming majority of studies underpinning the report are not new: they already have been taken into account in the determination of currently applicable standards.
In conclusion, the Canadian wireless industry will continue to be responsible by adhering to the safety standards enforced by the Government of Canada, guidelines that are based on actual science, not unsupported conjecture, and that reflect international standards as well. Safety Code 6 is a product of international standards that take into account all of the credible scientific literature available.
The scientific research overwhelmingly demonstrates that wireless technologies are safe.
Thank you. Merci.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Mr. Lord.
We'll now go to Mr. François Therrien from the Save our Children from Microwaves association.
Please begin.
9:20 a.m.
François Therrien Spokesperson, Collectif S.E.M.O. Save our Children from microwave
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I want to thank you for allowing us to appear today.
My name is François Therrien, and I am the spokesperson for Save our Children from Microwaves, or SEMO. I represent the section of the Canadian population that is aware of the harmful effects of microwaves used in wireless communication devices. On March 11 of this year, a petition on this issue signed by 11,000 people was presented to Parliament in Ottawa. And more than 5,600 people have signed various petitions in the Montreal region. Furthermore, it has come to our attention that many others have added their signatures to petitions across Canada, including Charlottetown, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria.
We are talking about microwaves. What are they exactly? Cell phones, cordless telephones, laptop computers, Wii and Xbox game consoles emit microwaves when in use. We have a choice to use or not use these devices. Microwaves primarily originate from cell phone relay antennas, WiMAX antennas, FM antennas, Wi-Fi router antennas, and DECT wireless telephone base stations that emit waves around the clock. In addition, newly developed electricity meters that communicate by microwave are expected to be installed in every Canadian home.
In Canada, the standards set out in Safety Code 6 are supposed to protect the population from microwaves. While they offer protection against thermal effects, they unfortunately do not guard against biological effects related to long-term low levels of exposure. When people find out—usually by chance—that they will soon live next to this type of antenna, they tend to seek information; and what they discover about microwaves can be unnerving.
I will shorten my presentation, but I just want to mention that the harmful effects of microwaves on the health of Canadians can be described using these names: electromagnetic hypersensitivity, microwave syndrome and sensitivity to electromagnetic fields. Symptoms include headaches, sleep disturbances, problems with concentration, dizziness or blood-brain barrier permeability, and DNA damage, and they may lead to cancer.
As for the science, Mr. Lord was right to mention the BioInitiative report. In our view, it is recognized scientific evidence. There is also the Interphone study, in which Canada participated. Of 13 countries, Canada is the only one where the microwave industry funded the study. I think everyone knows that we are still waiting for the results of that study and that the scientists apparently disagree on the type of conclusions that should appear in the report.
In terms of insurance companies and judicial decisions, some international companies now refuse to ensure cell phone companies on account of the very high risks they pose to people’s health. Appeal courts in various countries have ruled in favour of applying the precautionary principle. We are not talking about panic-mongers or activists here, but appeal court judges who have made these rulings.
From a political standpoint, the European Parliament took a historic vote of approximately 550 versus 16. Members of Parliament claimed to be concerned about the international BioInitiative report, and recommended a reduction in microwave exposure and the application of the precautionary principle. That was in April 2009.
Senators in the French Senate voted to prohibit cell phones in elementary and secondary schools. They also intend to prohibit advertising aimed at teenagers. This is clearly the result of applying the precautionary principle regarding the effects of microwaves. In Austria, Italy and elsewhere, permissible norms were decreased to levels corresponding to the recommendations in the international BioInitiative report.
In view of the urgency of this situation, allow me to specifically address members of the government. The government does much to promote families and children. It also does much to encourage the Canadian economy and the microwave-based communications industry.
Today, we are at a crossroads, and the government must choose whether to protect Canadians and their health or whether to encourage the growth of the microwave industry. Ignoring and denying the dangers of microwaves are no longer options. The intense promotion of microwave-emitting products to young people is endangering their health. This is a terribly sad situation, and the complicit silence of public health authorities is scandalous. We are demanding that the precautionary principle be applied. An example of this, especially in the case of children, was the H1N1 vaccination program. The pandemic declared by the WHO left us no other choice. Canada's public health authorities had to take action.
Today, it is recognized that the World Health Organization perhaps overreacted a little and that its decision was probably influenced by pharmaceutical companies. Why would you oppose the application of the precautionary principle today? Alarm signals are coming from numerous international, legal, political, medical and scientific communities. This time, however, the World Health Organization is maintaining its empty reassurances, and the microwave industry is benefiting. Does the precautionary principle absolutely have to be to the benefit of multinationals before it can be applied? We are concerned about the health of the population, and especially of children. But we are also concerned about increased healthcare costs associated with all kinds of illnesses that will arise unless something is done to prevent and reduce risks.
Prevention or healthcare? Once again, the government must make a choice. The government must react. This is what we demand of Canada’s health authorities: issue warnings to the population about health risks associated with microwaves as soon as possible; immediately stop the proliferation of devices using this technology, especially among young people; prohibit the installation of Wi-Fi systems in schools and daycare centres; lower applicable norms to a level below those causing harmful health effects—and the BioInitiative report has set the standard on that; and promote public safety standards rather than individual measures in relation to microwave exposure.
Ladies and gentlemen, please save our children from microwaves. Thank you for your consideration.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you so much.
Now we will go to Dr. Jack Rowley, a director of research and sustainability for public policy in Dublin.
Welcome to our committee, Dr. Rowley. You have between five and ten minutes to make your presentation and then the committee goes into questions and answers.
Can you hear me clearly?
9:25 a.m.
Dr. Jack Rowley Director, Research and Sustainability, Public Policy, GSM Association
Yes, I can. Thank you very much for the invitation.
I thank the Standing Committee on Health for the opportunity to provide information on this important issue.
The GSM Association recognizes that there is public concern about the siting of antennas and the use of mobile devices. These are low-powered radio services. It is the GSMA position, based on expert scientific reviews, that there are no established health risks from radio frequency exposures up to the levels recommended by the World Health Organization.
By way of introduction to the GSMA, the association represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry. Spanning 219 countries, the GSMA represents nearly 800 of the world's mobile operators as well as 200 supplier companies. The GSMA has had an active program supporting research and communications on these topics since 1996.
I work in the public policy department within the GSMA. I am responsible for activities related to the safety of mobile communications and responsible environmental practices. This includes overseeing the GSMA's global health research program and developing communication materials. I'm an electronics engineer by primary degree, and I hold a Ph.D. in the area of antenna design for mobile phones. I've been working in this field since 1994, and I have produced more than 80 publications and presentations on related topics.
The subject of radio frequency safety has been extensively studied for more than 50 years. There is a large body of research on radio signals in general and some 10 years of research specifically related to mobile communications. Currently, the WHO research-based database lists some 1,200 studies related to mobile communications topics in particular.
Human exposure recommendations have been developed that include large safety margins and that provide protection for all persons against all established health hazards. The recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICNIRP, are supported by the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the European Commission, and more than 30 independent expert scientific reviews done since the year 2000. They have been widely adopted in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The limits in the Canadian Safety Code 6 are consistent with those recommendations.
It's important to appreciate that public exposures from mobile and wireless networks are very low relative to the safety recommendations. The WHO stated in fact sheet 304 the following:
Recent surveys have shown that the RF [radio frequency] exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines....This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters.
Organizations such as the WHO, the Health Council of the Netherlands, and the U.K. Health Protection Agency have concluded that considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak radio signals from base stations and wireless networks cause any adverse health effects.
Some individuals have called for the adoption of policies based on arbitrarily low exposure limits or exclusion zones around locations such as schools, hospitals, or child care facilities. In some cases, these have been justified on the basis of incorrect reports of their adoption in other countries.
Contrary to claims on the Internet, there are no such enforceable national policies in Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, the U.K., or the U.S.A. Indeed, authorities in the U.K. have concluded the following:
...there is no scientific basis for establishing minimal distances between base stations and areas of public occupancy....There are many sources of exposure to RF fields, and it would in practice have little impact on people's overall exposure.
Policy-makers need to consider potential impacts on the concern of adopting non-science-based measures. Professor David Coggon, who is a former member of the U.K. Stewart expert group on mobile phones and health, has commented, and I quote, that:
Evidence is emerging that prior beliefs about the risks from modern technology are an important predictor of symptoms from perceived exposures. Thus, by distorting perceptions of risk, disproportionate precaution might paradoxically lead to illness that would not otherwise occur.
The subject of so-called electrohypersensitivity was recently reviewed by Dr. James Rubin of Kings College, London. He identified 46 blind or double-blind provocation studies involving 1,175 self-reported electrosensitive volunteers, and concluded there was no robust evidence to support a causal relationship between electromagnetic field exposures and the reported symptoms. That's consistent with the conclusion of the World Health Organization.
There is a widespread reliance on mobile communications for business purposes and personal safety. In Australia, Professor Simon Chapman at the University of Sydney studied the use of mobile phones in emergency situations and reported that one in four users had reported a dangerous situation using their mobile phone. He concluded that, “Any governmental decisions that reduce the reach of the mobile phone net which claim to be driven by public health concerns must factor in the reduction of such health benefits.”
I'll conclude this brief opening statement by noting that the GSMA supports the adoption of policies and standards based on established scientific evidence. We believe this provides protection for public health, is the best way to reassure the public, and supports access to the benefits of mobile communications.
I thank the committee for your attention and look forward to the discussions.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Dr. Rowley.
Now we have with us Dr. Havas from Baltimore.
Dr. Havas, can you hear me?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Wonderful.
I will ask you now to make a presentation of five to 10 minutes. You may begin now, and then we'll go into our question period.
Thank you for joining us.
9:35 a.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Thank you for asking me.
I'd like to make five points, and I'll try to make them as briefly as possible.
The current guidelines we have for microwave radiation are based on a thermal effect. This effect came out of research that was done following World War II with radar operators. It was intended to protect military personnel from radiation. I don't think anyone at that time realized what would happen with our love affair with wireless technology and that we would have this type of technology on top of apartment buildings and inside schools, and that children would be exposed to the radiation.
The guidelines that we currently have in Canada are 100 times higher than the guidelines in Russia. The reason for the discrepancy between the two is that the Russian guidelines do not apply to the military. When the United States was first instigating their guidelines, they had the same ones for the general public as for the military, and they didn't want any compromises in what they could do with microwave radiation.
Our guidelines, being 100 times higher than those in Russia, don't make sense any more, because the Russians are probably as sensitive to this form of energy as we are here in Canada.
So that is my first point: that the existing guidelines are inadequate. They're based on an assumed thermal effect, and we now have a lot of scientific documentation—over 6,000 publications—that show adverse health effects from this radiation well below those thermal guidelines.
My second point is that we have some recent advances that are worth noting. In September 2009, there was a Senate committee hearing on cellphones. Shortly following that, the Federal Communications Commission issued a fact sheet asking for a precautionary approach when it came to cellphone use. I think this was a major step forward.
In November last year, following the Senate hearing, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences published a report called “Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk”. This report shows that the radiation from mobile phones inhibits a tumour-suppressor gene. That means if you have cancer and you're exposed to this radiation, your cancer is likely to grow more quickly because the gene that suppresses the tumour is disabled.
Health Canada, in their 1999 report on page 11, states that some individuals may be more sensitive to the radiation. So in a sense they acknowledge the concept of electrohypersensitivity.
The Royal Society report in 1999 came up with three different biological indicators that happen below Safety Code 6. They include increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier, increased calcium flux between cells, and an increase in an enzyme that's been associated with cancer. In that 1999 report they state that the guidelines are not sufficiently protective for occupational exposure.
On the final document with recent advances, the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007 recognized that environmental sensitivities may be initiated and promoted by electromagnetic exposure.
My third point is that I have a unique perspective on this. I work with people who have developed electrohypersensitivity. My current research is trying to come up with diagnostic procedures we can provide to doctors, so when someone comes into their office and claims they are electrically hypersensitive, we can monitor them objectively.
The most recent study that we've completed—it has been accepted for peer review—will be coming out within the next month. It looks at cordless phones--a particular type of technology called the DECT phone. We found in a double-blind study that when we exposed people to the radiation from a cordless DECT phone at 0.3% of Safety Code 6 guidelines—well under Safety Code 6 guidelines—for three minutes, their hearts began to go into either arrhythmia or tachycardia. So they developed either a very rapid heart rate, palpitations, or an irregular heart rate.
That study was done in Colorado with 25 subjects. We've since repeated it with an additional 75 subjects and we're getting virtually the same response. So the comment that electromagnetic energy well below Safety Code 6 guidelines has no adverse biological or health effect is simply not supported by the study.
The fourth point I would like to make is that communities are trying desperately to protect their health. There are individuals among them who are very sensitive, and they're trying to keep telecommunication antennas away from residential areas and schools and day care centres. Each time this happens, Industry Canada overrides the local decision.
I was part of a group in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, where the city community decided it did not want a tower near day care centres and schools. Industry Canada simply said that was nonsense and overrode the local decision. So people are no longer having the right to determine what is in their environment.
Finally, I'd like to say that we're really not here trying to point blame at either the industry or government communities that are regulating this technology. What we're doing is responding to a very rapid increase in our exposure to microwave radiation, and I think it's responsible for us to respond to the people who are claiming that they are ill, testing to see whether or not their symptoms are induced by exposure to microwave radiation, and, if they are, to take steps that would limit their exposure.
I think what is absolutely essential is that we begin to reduce the current guidelines that we have. Safety Code 6 does not protect the public. We need to have areas where this technology is restricted, and that includes schools and hospitals. We need to have some microwave-free zones, and I think we have to educate health care professionals who are trying to treat their patients with very little success because, whatever the treatment is, they go back home into a dirty environment, an electromagnetically polluted environment, and they become sick again.
I would like to end my presentation with a quote that comes from the Freiburger Appeal in 2002. This appeal comes from a group of German physicians who got together and were very concerned that current guidelines were not protecting their patients:
Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas...causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient's thorough recovery. In the face of this disquieting development, we feel obliged to inform the public of our observations....What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible “safety limits” policy, which fails to take the protection of the public...as its criterion for action. Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened. We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results--which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry--while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now! Above all, we are, as doctors, the advocates for our patients. In the interest of all those concerned, whose basic right to life and freedom from bodily harm is currently being put at stake, we appeal to those in the spheres of politics and public health.
That is the end of my presentation.
Thank you very much.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I thank you very much for your presentation, Dr. Havas.
We'll now go into the first round of our questions and answers. It's seven minutes per person for the question and answer. I will be watching the time quite closely so we can get the maximum number of questions and answers on the record today. If you see the light turn on, please note that I'm going to be asking you to wrap up. Please don't ignore it, because I do have a tendency to shut your mike off so we can go to the next person. It's not to be rude, it's simply that we need to get all the questions and answers out there.
We'll start with Ms. Murray.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the time and effort all of the intervenors are putting into coming here to help us understand this.
Obviously the technology is completely woven into our lives and important for our productivity and quality of life. At the same time, there are many people who are very concerned that the cumulative impacts, or impacts that are beyond the thermal impacts, haven't been properly studied, or have been studied and haven't been resolved.
This question is for any of the intervenors. Is there research that Health Canada could or should be doing that would more likely capture cumulative impacts, if there are such, that Health Canada doesn't at this point have established?
Secondly, is the research really directed at impacts on children? Children's responses to environmental impacts are not just proportional to their weight difference compared to an adult, but when they're in a stage of development it can have a different kind of impact.
I'd like also a comment on this. When there's such opposite testimony and some are saying there's no proof of any harm and others are saying there are 6,000 studies, publications—and I'm interested in how many of those are peer-reviewed--what would the committee members propose as a forum for taking this issue to where there can be a more in-depth study than two hearings to come to some conclusions?
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Who would like to begin the answer to Ms. Murray's question?
Ms. Pieterson.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
I would just say that Health Canada has some research in this area, not a huge amount, but there's lots of research going on internationally in the area. And I think in terms of the long-term effects of cellphones, as you know, as Mr. Lord referred to, there was the Danish study, but the cohort included people who hadn't really used them all that long. There is value in having longer-term studies certainly, and I don't think anyone would deny that. Health Canada doesn't usually conduct those types of studies themselves.
As far as children are concerned, there have been a number of studies on children, and to date there's no evidence that children are any more at risk to this effect than others. That doesn't mean if people are concerned they shouldn't take the precautionary principle. Health Canada's written material states that: if parents are concerned, they can limit their children's cellphone use, if they can, and use hands-free devices and things.
I'd like to clarify another point that's been used. Health Canada's Safety Code 6 does look at non-thermal effects. It's a misconception that it only has set the limits based on thermal effects. In fact, as for the range of microwave energy in the electromagnetic spectrum, at the lower levels of that range it's nerve and muscle stimulation that is the end effect, acute effect, not thermal stimulation. And when we set those limits, we looked at all the literature available, the huge wealth of literature available on non-thermal effects also.
9:45 a.m.
Professor, As an Individual
First of all, there is evidence that children are more sensitive to this form of radiation, although very little research has been done on this. That's a study that came out just last year, written by Dr. Lennart Hardell from Sweden. With cellphone radiation, he found that when he looked at individuals who used cellphones, there was an increase in something called ipsilateral tumours, which are tumours on the same side of head that you use the cellphone. This was found for glioma, the brain tumour; for acoustic neuroma, a tumour that affects the auditory nerve; and for uveal melanoma, which affects the eye. He also found that if you looked at children who were under the age of 20 when they first started using cellphones, their risk increased to 420%, whereas the risk for adults was much lower than that. So we do know that children are much more sensitive to any type of environmental contaminant and certainly this one as well.
When it comes to the number of references and where these references are, I'm in Maryland right now and I have just had meetings with a Dr. Glaser, who has one of the best collections of microwave references. He worked with the U.S. military. He was in the navy and began to collect these in the 1960s. So he has a collection that extends beyond 6,000 references. Many of them are from the military, some of them come from eastern European countries, and he's making them available to the public. So this will be available and anyone can read them. He's one of the leading experts in this. So Canada is going to have access to, I think, one of the best references that we can rely on.
I think it's absolutely critical that instead of doing a long-term study and waiting 10 to 15 years, it's really important that we begin to limit exposure. That doesn't necessarily mean changing what we're doing right now. For example, if you put an antenna on top of an apartment building, you can simply put shielding devices underneath those antennas to protect the tenants on the top floor.
So there are ways to minimize our exposure without changing the use of this particular type of technology.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative