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.
Conservative
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Good.
You were about to read something from one of the studies.
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.
Conservative
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?
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.
Conservative
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
In a minute, if I can first get Health Canada's answer.
Conservative
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--
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.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
And what studies are we looking at, or is Health Canada looking at?
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
Health Canada is looking at the peer-reviewed literature, Canadian and international literature.
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.
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.
