Health Committee on April 27th, 2010

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.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Are there other comments?

9:45 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Could I comment?

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Please go ahead, Dr. Havas.

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

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Very briefly, Mr. Therrien. Time is running out.

9:50 a.m.

Spokesperson, Collectif S.E.M.O. Save our Children from microwave

François Therrien

Thank you.

Sunday, on Radio-Canada, Dan Krewski—who many consider the leading scientific expert on the effects of microwaves on human health—was taking questions about the effects on children. As usual, he said that more research was needed. We needed to probe further. He could not make a determination based on the current studies.

He then mentioned the MOBI-KIDS study, which was undertaken by the same people who were behind the Interphone study. The study began in 2008, I believe. According to him, once the results of that study are in, it will be possible to determine whether microwaves are dangerous or not. The MOBI-KIDS study was funded the same way as the Interphone study. It was wholly funded by the people at the CWTA and the GSMA. In our view, that is a way of keeping the debate at the scientific level.

Thank you.

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

We will now go to Monsieur Malo.

9:50 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

As Ms. Murray said, there are indeed a number of studies with seemingly conflicting results. My question is for Ms. Pieterson.

When a new study comes out, what kind of analysis does Health Canada do? You said that no conclusive scientific evidence exists right now to show that current levels are not appropriate. Could you clearly describe how Health Canada goes about analyzing the various studies that have been done?

9:50 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I think there are many scientific publications. For Health Canada, it has to be peer-reviewed, first of all. That means it has undergone the scrutiny of scientists who are experts in that field, so it has to be in a peer-reviewed journal.

One study doesn't make conclusive evidence. We use an expression in Health Canada, “the weight of evidence”, which is looking at all of the studies out there. Is something reproduceable? Has it been reproduced in another lab? If one group of scientists does it, it's usually not considered conclusive until others can repeat it in different laboratories. Is the quality of the science there? There are different factors like that. It goes through scientific scrutiny.

Does that help?

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

The various stages are not yet clear, but we can focus on one study, in particular. You said in your testimony that the BioInitiative report contained inconsistencies. Could you tell us what they are?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

We did. We studied the BioInitiative Report, and there were inconsistencies. When I said that, I meant that it contradicted itself within the report. In one chapter it said something, and in another chapter it contradicted what it said—I can't tell you those things—or it made references to different studies at different times.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Could you be more specific?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I cannot give you the precise details at this point.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Could the committee get a copy of that?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

Yes, I can.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Thank you.

At the beginning of your presentation, Ms. Pieterson, you said that the Department of Health was doing studies internally.

Has it done any on this topic, specifically?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I understand.

I just didn't hear the last part of the question; I'm sorry.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

At the beginning of your presentation, you said that the Department of Health was doing studies internally.

Has it done any on this topic, specifically?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I didn't specifically refer to the internal studies by Health Canada, but they're ones that looked at.... We'd look at thermal effects on tissue, and we're doing some genomic study to look at possible genetic effects of electromagnetic radiation.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

So Health Canada has never done any studies specifically on the health effects discussed in the BioInitiative report? Is that correct?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I'm sorry, I don't have the translation on, and I don't understand exactly the question.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

We'll pause for a moment.

Could someone assist Ms. Pieterson?

The translation should be functioning now.

Monsieur Malo, would you please continue?

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

I am talking about the health effects mentioned in the BioInitiative report: leukemia, brain tumours, immune system disorders and breast cancer. That is what worries people the most, I would say.

Has Health Canada done any studies on those?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

No, we have not conducted those exact studies ourselves, but there's lots of available scientific literature that has been reviewed.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

I read that Health Canada had spent $500,000 on electromagnetic field research, assessment, investigation and monitoring since 2003. Could you tell us exactly where this money went?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I can submit that to you. I don't know that off the top of my head. I'd be happy to submit in writing what our funds were spent on.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Parfait.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you. If you could submit that to the clerk, Ms. Pieterson, that would be very good.

You have another minute, Monsieur Malo.

9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

There seem to be differing interpretations on the precautionary principle, as well.

How do you explain the fact that people on both sides disagree on how to apply the precautionary principle?

9:55 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I think everyone applies it in a different way based on the need for it. It does apply, and there are many examples where we apply it. It's used where there's some evidence and the evidence is not conclusive, but based on the possibility of risk we will take the action.

If you want an example, I suppose you could use the example of the bisphenol A in baby bottles. It was banned recently by Health Canada using the precautionary principle. The evidence is not conclusive that it's harmful, actually, but because children could be potentially harmed the precautionary principle was taken. Other countries haven't used that evidence available and taken action; Health Canada did. That's one example. But in the case of electromagnetic energy and potential harms, we believe there's enough evidence and therefore we don't take the precautionary principle.

The examples in Europe, where neighbourhoods or communities have banned cell towers in schoolyards and things, that's the precautionary principle. Communities can do that based on the local politics and decisions they make there, but it's not based on scientific evidence.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Monsieur Malo.

We'll now go to Ms. Hughes.

10 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Therrien, you appear to want to say something before I ask my questions. You have been nodding your head a lot.

10 a.m.

Spokesperson, Collectif S.E.M.O. Save our Children from microwave

François Therrien

Yes, thank you.

With respect to what Mr. Malo said about scientific research in Canada, I just wanted to mention that researchers from the radiology centre at Saint-Luc hospital in Montreal took part in the Interphone study, as experts. They made a request to assess the health effects on a population living near a relay antenna. The request was not funded by the CIHR, the research centre that normally funds studies.

In Canada, there is a clear unwillingness to fund so-called independent studies. The only studies we have and the only studies that Industry Canada relies on are those that, until proven otherwise, are funded by the CWTA. That is the point I wanted to make with respect to what Mr. Malo said earlier.

10 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Very well. Thank you.

You mentioned, Ms. Pieterson, that Health Canada is basing the level based on studies, and I'd be interested in knowing who guided the research. How was it basically funded? Was it Health Canada or was it industry that funded the research?

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Ms. Pieterson, before you answer that, Mr. Lord wanted to make a comment on the last question.

Mr. Lord, would you do that first? Then we'll go to Ms. Pieterson.

10 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll be very brief.

Mr. Therrien has questioned us a few times and seems to want people to believe that the only studies conducted in Canada are those funded and led by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, which is completely untrue.

Funding was provided. Our industry, our association wants to act responsibly. We are aware that some people may have questions. It is not unusual that we would decide to take part. The industry provides money, but it is only a portion of what is needed to carry out the studies. Neither the CWTA nor its members influence the studies in any way. We are not consulted regarding the results before they are published or anything like that. That needs to be clear.

It is one thing to want to scare people, but I think you need to be realistic and tell it like it is. You cannot get carried away and say things that are not true. The CWTA funded a portion of certain studies, but it has absolutely no right of review regarding those studies. The studies are independent. We are in a bit of a unique situation. Certain industries and companies are being singled out. So they decide to do the right thing and are willing to fund independent studies. Then they are criticized for funding the studies.

10 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

I do not want to get into a debate on that.

Madam Chair, this was my time, and I did ask a question to someone in particular.

I appreciate the feedback.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Ms. Pieterson, go right ahead.

10 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

I did ask a question to Health Canada.

10 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

We based our Safety Code 6 on all available information. That's peer-reviewed scientific literature, expert reports, information. We do not conduct a lot of the research. Some of the published results are by Health Canada science. They are peer-reviewed and done by Health Canada scientists. The bulk of the data are done by international experts around the world. We followed the procedure--the World Health Organization has a guideline--on how to develop our Safety Code 6; we used the WHO's guideline on how to develop it.

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

I just want to remind, as well, that sometimes Health Canada has put guidelines in place and they have had to change them because of other scientific evidence that has come forward. We need to look at what happened with the Bell Canada workers. We could look at what happened even before the smoking bylaws came into place. We used to think, oh, smoking was okay.

I want to ask a question with regard to Dr. Magda Havas. I did listen to the piece on CBC Radio, and I have a couple of letters here from some people who say they are affected by the cellphone usage or all of these towers. One of them comes from White Rock, B.C., and another one here comes from Toronto.

I understand you did do some studies in Toronto on a particular apartment, from a Mrs. Caroline Orban. My understanding is that Spectrum went in and did a study on this particular apartment as well.

I was just wondering what your findings were.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Who would like to answer that question?

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

It was for Dr. Havas.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Oh.

Dr. Havas, could you please respond to that question?

Hello, Dr. Havas, are you there?

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Did we lose her?

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

I'm so sorry. We'll try to get her back.

Who else do you want to respond?

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

I have another question.

It would seem that there is no danger, based on the reports you have reviewed, Mr. Lord. Is that the case? What effects are indicated in studies that you are not accepting?

10:05 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

Thank you for the question.

First of all, as I've said before, we comply with the regulations and standards that are set by Health Canada and are enforced by Industry Canada. There are studies from around the world.

We base what we say on the body of evidence that is out there. Someone asked earlier if there should be more studies. We welcome more studies. We think having more studies on the subject is a good thing. We want to make sure that these products are safe. We believe they are safe. We want to make sure that they continue to be safe, because everybody uses them, including us. We all have them. We use them ourselves. Our children use them. They're in our homes. They're everywhere. The fact is that they are safe.

We rely on the body of evidence that is out there. When we're asked to support studies, we only do it in cases of independent studies. We know that if we fund a study that is not independent, it's not a reliable study. We want it to be credible. And we're usually just one of many funding partners for certain studies.

There is a body of evidence out there in the scientific community, and we rely on that. We, as an industry, do not set the standards. I myself don't set the standards. We simply review what is there and we comply with the standards. I think it's important, as well, when we talk about these things, to realize the benefits that come from this technology.

We talk about health and safety concerns. Maybe some of the members of the committee don't realize it, but more than half the 911 calls in Canada are made on mobile wireless devices. There are some clearly positive impacts for our community.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Mr. Lord.

We'll go to Dr. Carrie--

10:05 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Excuse me; I was disconnected as soon as the question was asked, so I didn't hear the entire question.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Dr. Havas, if you'll just be patient for a minute, we'll go to Dr. Carrie. It's his turn for questions. But just hang on, because we'll get back to you.

10:05 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Okay.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

You know what? In case we lose Dr. Havas again--we have a bad connection there--perhaps I would ask for patience from Dr. Carrie and go back to Ms. Hughes' question.

Ms. Hughes.

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Thank you.

Dr. Havas, I did listen to you on CBC Radio. I have some correspondence I received with regard to a study you did on an apartment in Toronto, specifically for a Caroline Orban. I was just wondering what your results were with respect to that apartment building.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Go ahead, Dr. Havas.

10:10 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Thank you for asking.

I was contacted by a woman in that apartment who asked me to do some measurements. I went there. She told me that Industry Canada was also going to be doing some measurements. I asked her to make certain that Industry Canada provided her with real numbers rather than with a percentage of Safety Code 6.

The people who live on the top floor of that apartment--it's the 8th floor--are immediately underneath antennas. They are so close that they can take a broom and touch the antennas with a broom handle. We did measurements, and when Industry Canada went a week later to do the measurements, I was called while they were there. I was told that one of the providers, Bell Mobility, had actually disconnected the antennas. They weren't operational for the Industry Canada readings. They were operational for my readings, because we got the highest levels immediately under the antennas.

When I compare the two values--the values Industry Canada documented and the values I had--they were perfectly linear. There was a perfect correlation based on where we took them. Industry Canada's values were one-fifth of my values, which having the antennas turned off would account for.

The people on that top floor are now very ill. One family has moved out. Another one is taking legal action against the landlord, and the third family is thinking of taking legal action as well, because they've all become ill. The antennas went up in December, and by February, some of the people couldn't live there anymore because of their response to the electromagnetic microwave radiation.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Dr. Havas.

Dr. Carrie.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

As a father of three kids, we've recently updated to the family plan, because we utilize a lot of these products in our family. I realize that EMF is everywhere. It's this microphone, buildings, our toasters, our TV, and I guess the greatest source is actually from the sun.

I'm wondering if there are any sources that we as a committee could direct Canadians to, if they have questions about exposure to microwave radiation.

Do you, Monsieur Lord, have something from industry that we could direct Canadians to; or perhaps you, Madam Pieterson, from Health Canada; or even you, Mr. Rowley, over there in Ireland? Are there perhaps different websites or sources that we could direct Canadians to with their questions?

10:10 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I will start.

Health Canada has a number of publications on our website geared to the public. We have several articles in our “It's Your Health” section. Let me just read them. We have one on safety of cellphones and cellphone towers, another one on electric and magnetic fields at low frequency, and one on radiation safety of microwave ovens and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. As well, Safety Code 6 is available there if you're interested in the technical details. Industry Canada also has lots of technical and non-technical information about Safety Code 6, their regulations, and how they apply.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you.

Monsieur Lord, does the industry have fact sheets or websites?

10:10 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

We recommend that people visit the Health Canada website. New information is updated there on a regular basis.

As a father of two myself, I think it's important for parents to inform themselves to make sure they make the right decisions for themselves. Most parents will tell you that they feel safer knowing their children have mobile devices with them rather than not.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Rowley, are there websites or international sources that we could direct Canadians to?

10:10 a.m.

Director, Research and Sustainability, Public Policy, GSM Association

There certainly are. Thank you for that question.

The World Health Organization has a dedicated unit following this topic, and you will find on their web page a series of fact sheets addressing the main topics related to these issues. Also, because we recognize that it is a global issue, we've recorded more than 100 reviews and statements by expert groups on the topic of radio frequency safety since the middle 1970s. On the GSM Association website we list that extensive resource so people can go there. They can see the reviews by expert and independent scientific committees. I'd be happy to provide the web links to the committee.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much. It would be great if you could provide that.

While we have you there, Dr. Rowley--

10:15 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

May I provide information on websites as well?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Dr. Havas, thank you for interceding. I can't see you physically, so please, when you want to make a comment, please intercede.

Go ahead.

10:15 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

I have three websites to recommend. One is www.microwavenews.com; this is a very authoritative document from the United States that keeps abreast of all the developments in this area. The other two are Canadian. One is www.weepinitiative.ca. The other is www.rewire.me, and that's the ElectroSensitive Society, which has just started to help people suffering from this illness.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much.

To Dr. Rowley, and perhaps Health Canada, how do the limits proposed in the BioInitiative Report compare to the limits of Safety Code 6 and other international guidelines?

10:15 a.m.

Director, Research and Sustainability, Public Policy, GSM Association

The limits are typically between 1,000 and 10,000 times more restrictive than the limits proposed in the international safety recommendations. They have their origins in a small study in Austria, which is not supported by any independent scientific confirmation. They were originally adopted as a local policy in the city of Salzburg, Austria.

Measurements done for the Swiss regulator confirmed that you cannot build a mobile network and provide wireless services at the limits recommended in the BioInitiative Report. About 50% of locations were above the limits in the BioInitiative Report and 50% of limits were below that. You cannot operate a mobile network and comply with those limits.

As other speakers have noted, and expert groups representing from the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, and the U.K. have all concluded, those limits are not based on scientific evidence of public health. They do not provide any additional public health protection. What they do is reinforce people's concern, and that is in and of itself a health risk that needs to be addressed.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Are you able to comment about the authors of the BioInitiative Report? Do they represent any authoritative international body? Who do they represent?

10:15 a.m.

Director, Research and Sustainability, Public Policy, GSM Association

The report makes it clear that it's a collection of chapters written by individual scientists who are expressing their personal assessment of the science on a range of topics. The summary chapter was written by a consultant from California who specializes in offering services to reduce exposure in people's homes. It's not a synthesis scientific committee expert group report.

10:15 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

May I comment on that as well?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Yes, please go ahead.

10:15 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

The BioInitiative Report is only one of a number of reports, resolutions, and appeals that have come out. It started with Salzburg in 2000. Then there was a report in Italy, the Catania Resolution, in 2002; the Freiburger Appeal, from German physicians, in 2002; the Irish Doctors Environmental Association, in 2005; the Helsinki Appeal 2005, in Finland; and there were two Italian ones: the Benevento Resolution and the Venice Appeal.

The most recent one was the Porto Alegre Resolution, in Brazil. I'd like to read something very briefly from what this resolution states, that--

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

I'm sorry, Dr. Havas, the time is up. I would like you, if you could, to submit your documentation to our committee, because you have so much interesting information. Could you do that?

We'll now go into our five-minute rounds.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

I gave up some of my time earlier.

Would the witnesses, Monsieur Lord and the witness from Health Canada, also be able to submit--

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Absolutely.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

--anything else they have to add, perhaps, about the authors of the BioInitiative Report?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Could you please submit that to us, as well?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Or if you get a chance to speak later on.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Actually, Dr. Carrie, I gave you your full time.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Oh, you did. Thank you very much.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

We're going into the second round, five minutes.

Apparently, Ms. Murray and Ms. Minna, you're going to be sharing, so the watch is at five minutes. Thanks.

Who starts?

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got one very quick question.

I was talking to my nephew doctor, and he was warning my niece about this issue. I seem to hear from Dr. Havas and from Mr. Therrien that there is evidence out in the field and work that is being done. They notice it. I think you have to trust to some degree people who work with people. Sometimes we forget that during the SARS event the nurses knew more and they saw it coming long before the doctors acknowledged it. I think there's something happening here.

My question to Health Canada is whether there is any coming together of people like Mr. Therrien and Dr. Havas to look at ways of doing studies to see if there's real concern that we need to be addressing. I don't think the answer is in the extremes; I think it's somewhere in the middle.

10:20 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

The term “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” is a term to describe a number of effects. It's not that anyone denies that these effects don't happen. It's the fact that numerous scientific studies have failed to make an adequate association between the electromagnetic radiation and the effects themselves. So the causes of the symptoms are unclear, from a scientific point of view.

There are suggestions that they might arise from environmental factors unrelated to the EMFs. We don't know.

Yes, there should be more study. I think many of us have said that. More study is the answer, and there are ongoing studies.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Thank you.

To Ms. Pieterson, given your comment that there should be more studies--which is not the same as what you said in your briefing, that this has been thoroughly evaluated and Health Canada does not support the notion that there are hazards posed--it sounds like Health Canada might in fact be open to relooking at the evidence and the studies.

What would it take for Health Canada to do a longitudinal study that goes right down to the postal code to identify if there is any correspondence between problems and locations that are close to the EMF sources?

10:20 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

Again, I'm not sure if Health Canada should do the study. Health Canada would certainly be interested in such a study, and helping with it.

I don't think...I said the studies to date may ensure that our Safety Code 6, we believe, is accurate and shouldn't be changed. We review the Safety Code 6 standards regularly to update them and we reissued it again in 2009. So certainly I don't want any member of the committee to believe that it's set in stone. We continuously review the literature and would change it as imposed by...as another member of the committee suggested about changing guidelines. We do change guidelines based on new information.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Thank you.

I'd like to take a minute of our time to hear from Dr. Havas, who was cut off in the previous round. She was going to read something.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Dr. Havas, are you online here?

10:20 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Yes, I am.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Good.

You were about to read something from one of the studies.

10:20 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

That's right, the Porto Alegre Resolution in Brazil. This was intended by scientists from all over the world, and this is what they stated:

Scientists and doctors recognize electrohypersensitivity and are concerned that exposure to electromagnetic fields may increase the risk of cancer and chronic diseases; that exposure levels established by international agencies (IEEE, ICNIRP, ICES) are obsolete; and that wireless technology places at risk the health of children, teens, pregnant women and others who are vulnerable.

This was one of their recommendations and conclusions.

That's one of about 10 different scientific groups that have gotten together and that do represent the scientific community in this area.

Regarding Ms. Pieterson's comment that the Safety Code 6 is updated, I had a good look at the 2009 versus the 1999 safety code, and the major difference I saw was the removal of one of the statements on page 11 of the original report that said some people are more sensitive to this form of radiation. That statement was removed in the most recent report, and I'm really quite curious as to why that might be.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Dr. Havas.

We'll now go to Mr. Uppal.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Thank you.

I want to ask a couple of questions regarding high-voltage power lines. This has become a huge issue in my riding, where there are going to be very large power lines. They're proposed to go right through the riding. They're 500 volts. They're 20-storey-high towers.

My office has received hundreds--maybe close to a thousand--e-mails on this from residents. There have been town hall meetings with thousands of people showing up, so it's a concern to people. The concern comes from one side of the story versus the other side of the story--one side of the evidence on health, and what the other side is proposing.

The power companies and, frankly, the Government of Alberta are basing their justification on Health Canada's guidelines. Can you explain further the science behind Health Canada's guidelines? Are there studies that Health Canada has done on power lines? If you haven't done your own studies, which studies have you looked at?

10:25 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

I'll try to explain some of this.

For cellphone towers, the appropriate exposure limits are expressed in terms of a field intensity. Usually it's measured in watts per square metre. The Safety Code 6 limit for the general public is 10 watts per square metre.

I hope some of my other colleagues will speak up, if they know more of this technically.

Studies have shown--Industry Canada actually does measurements in the area--that the exposure limits are very much less than the safety code standard. The whole body is exposed to RF energy, and the power density is used for evaluation of exposures. Recent surveys have indicated that the exposures from cellphone towers in publicly accessible areas are normally 1,000 times below the international exposure standard or the Safety Code 6 standard: 1,000 times below.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

And what about power lines? That's--

10:25 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

May I comment on that?

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

In a minute, if I can first get Health Canada's answer.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Mr. Uppal is asking a question, Dr. Havas. Be patient, please.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

In terms of power lines, 500-volt power lines are supposed to be the very largest power lines--

10:25 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

Again, the exposure limit to individuals in the area is way below the limit set.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

And what studies are we looking at, or is Health Canada looking at?

10:25 a.m.

Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health

Health Canada is looking at the peer-reviewed literature, Canadian and international literature.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

I'd like to give Mr. Lord an opportunity to respond to my colleague Colin Carrie's question regarding the BioInitiative Report and its authors.

I think you were going to speak about the authors of that report.

10:25 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

I was simply going to say that we have nothing to say about the authors themselves. We just reviewed what others have said, and we rely on other scientists who have examined the BioInitiative Report and who have concluded that it is not in accordance with other science that's been accepted and peer-reviewed.

That seems to be the big difference, the fact that some are peer-reviewed and some are not. That seems to be a clear difference.

As I've stated before, we certainly welcome more study. At the same time, as we weigh the evidence—and I think it's important to weigh the evidence before us--around the world, and also examine what's perceived to be the risk, we cannot take away all the benefits that come from this technology, benefits that help us in our communities, with education, with health care, and with public safety. All of those have to be part of it. At a time when the federal government wants to embark on a digital economy strategy, which we think is very important for the future prosperity of our country, we have to make sure that we look at the evidence and don't succumb to fear over reason and conjecture over science, because that's really the choice before us.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you very much.

We have a few more minutes.

Dr. Havas, would you like to make comment?

10:25 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

Yes, I would.

The question was about high-voltage transmission lines. For that, we're not interested in power density. We're not talking about microwave energy; we're talking about extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields. Canada's guideline on that is about 833 milligauss—that's the strength of the magnetic field. Studies are showing that there's an increased risk of childhood leukemia between two and four milligauss; an increase in breast cancer up to 12 milligauss; and an increase in miscarriages at 16 milligauss. All of these values are well below the 833 milligauss that Health Canada uses for magnetic fields.

So there is a concern about people who live near them. The childhood leukemia has been recognized internationally. Low-frequency magnetic fields have been classified as a class 2B carcinogen, meaning a possible carcinogen.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Cardin.

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the committee.

You would not think it, but I am very sensitive. It does not show, but I am, both emotionally and physically. I really believe that microwaves can affect people. I especially do not want a confrontation between the industry and health advocates, either today or in the future. I would prefer that both sides work together to find solutions.

A number of years ago, I used to wear my cell phone on my belt, back when they used to have small antennas sticking out from them. Then, one day, I developed a rash in the exact spot where I wore my cell phone, and it worried me. I got the feeling that it was caused by the phone, so I started carrying my cell phone in a different place, and the problem went away. I wanted to know whether the problem was in fact caused by the cell phone, so I put it back on my belt, and the problem came back. That was enough to convince me.

Today, as much as possible, I wear earphones when talking on my cell phone in the car. I do not carry the device that can capture the waves directly on my person. When I have to hold the phone directly to my ear, it feels totally different. By the way, when I used to wear my old cell phone on my belt, I knew it was going to ring even before it made a sound. I am convinced there is something to that and that we need to work on determining the levels. Some people are probably more sensitive to it than others. It is certainly not the majority of people, or else the source of the problem would have been found by now.

I think this is an excellent opportunity for the CWTA to determine the scope of the problem. As far as facilities go, I think we need to do more than just applying the precautionary principle. Ideally, even if there are more people who are not sensitive to the phenomenon than who are, the law of the majority should not rule. This is a case where we need to intervene for everyone's sake. And we need to work together in order to succeed.

The story I just recounted is a bit of anecdotal evidence. I am convinced there is something to it. The question is how do we come up with a solution. The industry is here to stay, and it will. People, however, are not like industries. They do not live forever. It is my hope, though, that they live long and well.

I want to know what the representatives on both sides recommend.

10:30 a.m.

Spokesperson, Collectif S.E.M.O. Save our Children from microwave

François Therrien

I want to thank Mr. Cardin for his comment.

We mentioned Web sites that provide information on the health effects. The official Web sites of Industry Canada, the GSMA and the CWTA provide a lot of information. But all of them deny the existence of the electrosensitivity problem on their Web sites. None of the sites acknowledge the illness, which is related to microwave exposure.

You asked whether we could work together to find a solution. It will be necessary to establish a basis for understanding at some point. First and foremost, what has to happen is that the industry must recognize the existence of electrosensitivity problems. That is what we need to do now. Not only do they not recognize that electrosensitivity exists, but all of them also refer, on their Web sites—which concerned parents such as Mr. Carrie check—to the World Health Organization's study in which the subjects had a predisposition to electrosensitivity as a result of psychiatric problems. Anyone looking for information on these official Web sites will see that.

There are people who are exposed to microwaves through relay antennas, as Magda Havas mentioned in her presentation and according to emails sent to you by a number of Canadians. One could think that the public no longer has faith in the safety standards. So there is a societal problem. What happens when the public no longer believes what the authorities tell them about safety? That is the question that needs to be asked.

It is time to stop denying this reality and to recognize it. Then we need to realize that the microwave issue should no longer be viewed from a scientific standpoint. We cannot think that tomorrow two researchers will discover that microwaves are harmful. The proof is that the more studies there are to show the harmful effects, the more studies there will be to show the opposite.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

We'll now go to Mrs. Davidson.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks very much to our presenters this morning.

We're certainly hearing some differing opinions as far as what's dangerous and what isn't, I believe, and what's accepted as scientific information and what isn't. I'm just a little bit confused about where we go from here.

Ms. Pieterson, you've said that certainly Health Canada would welcome more studies. I think that's the way it should be. I think we always need to be willing to update, and you have indicated that is the role at Health Canada, to make those changes as new scientific evidence becomes available.

We've heard quite a bit about the study that's being done, the one that Health Canada does not feel has scientific background to it. So the evidence that is presented there is not taken into account, I guess, by Health Canada.

If we agree that we need to have more studies, and Health Canada doesn't do these studies in particular--they're done by individuals and by independent people--who's going to do them, and how are we going to determine that they are of scientific value?

10:35 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

I'd be happy to comment on that, not just as president of the CWTA but as someone who spent a bit of little time on public policy.

I think in the end we have to have institutions such as Health Canada that set the norm. We need to have institutions that will weigh the evidence and examine all of the evidence itself. It's not because a scientist somewhere comes up with one study that says one thing or another, that this should be enough to completely change everything that we have. I think it's important to have institutions and groups that will weigh scientific evidence that is peer-reviewed to examine what the risks are and what standards need to be set. Once those standards are set, then you have to expect industry—that I now represent—to follow the standards that are set.

The fact that there is a willingness to have ongoing studies is only normal because human knowledge never ceases and we have to have an evergreening process of understanding. What we see with the peer-reviewed international studies is that there's no reason to conclude that there are risks. But we know there are significant benefits and that must be taken into account as well.

We see this often in public life. We always want to find the balance. We always want to find the middle ground. What's the middle ground? Sometimes you may have people who believe that the earth is round and some who believe it's flat. The answer is not in the middle. You can't just say, “It's probably like an orange sliced in half: most of it is round, but some of it is flat.” That's not the case.

That's why it's important to look at the body of evidence, and the body of evidence is that this is safe. We must continue to examine it to see if there are other things that can be done to make sure that we protect public safety, absolutely. I think, in the end, institutions like Health Canada have that responsibility. We have to make sure that they have the resources to make that assessment, and then Industry Canada must make sure that industry complies with the regulations. Luckily for us in Canada, that's what we have now.

10:35 a.m.

Professor, As an Individual

May I comment as well?

I think if we're going to try to resolve this issue, it's absolutely essential that we have funding for independent research that's done in North America. Considering our exposure to this microwave radiation from wireless technology inside our homes and from wireless technology outside our homes, it's amazing that we don't have funding for independent research. That's really the first step. We have to better understand what the mechanisms are and what the exposure limits are. We have some amazing scientists who simply are unable to get resources to apply their science to this problem. I think when it comes to committees looking at this, that's a second step. The first step is really to get independent research funded in Canada and in the United States.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Go ahead, Dr. Rowley.

10:40 a.m.

Director, Research and Sustainability, Public Policy, GSM Association