I thank you for that. I think we do believe that's what the precautionary principle means: that just because something has not yet been proven conclusively to be dangerous doesn't mean it's safe. So I think that if you were in charge of writing the recommendations for this committee.... This committee isn't the arbiter of science, but we are the arbiter of the health of Canadians, and perhaps there are so many questions now being posed that we might want people to go back to the drawing board and have a look.
As a family doctor, in an observational study of baby monitors I wouldn't even know if I was telling the family doctors of Canada what questions to ask in terms of behaviour, let alone how we would go forward with a study like that. I guess some of us are feeling that one of the recommendations would be to have proper longitudinal studies on population that at the beginning would focus on children.
Obviously the regulations--Dr. Johansson and others have been pretty clear--need to be changed. There needs to be a focus on risk and on minimizing whatever risk exists by, as we heard on Tuesday, putting shields in place, and by telling people not to put their cellphone to their ear but to use the wires or whatever. What are some of the things you would want to see in our report in terms of what we, as non-scientists in this area, should be asking and calling upon the government to do?