Health Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Beth Pieterson]

I think parents have to make decisions all the time about the safety of their kids and the well-being of their families. I think they have to seek good information, talk to their health care providers, and get information from all sources. Science isn't black and white. There are always going to be different sides. They need to make their own decisions.

This is Health Canada's position on this issue. Certainly, the information on our website, we believe, is very accurate and true and worth being read by parents. It talks about Wi-Fi and exposure to cellphones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Muc, did you want to comment?

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

Yes, if I may. Actually, I'm trying to address what you've raised, and I will also use the example that was raised previously about peanut allergies. Peanut allergies are established as an effect in certain people, so it's reasonable to take action to deal with established effects.

But despite Mr. Palmer's observations of distressful occurrences in the schools, those effects have not been established as a consequence of Wi-Fi per se. Now, there has not been a study specifically of children to determine that kind of thing, but nonetheless the standards and guidelines have indeed, as Ms. Pieterson raised, the issue of modelling and so on.... It's established that at levels far below--which is what Wi-Fi produces--the levels that are accepted by SC 6, it is not expected that effects like that will occur.

I will also say that in my experience with these situations over the last four decades, there have been similar spectra of consequences and of observations in schools, related to things like flicker in fluorescent tubes and colour quality of lighting, whether it's full spectrum so-called solar or natural fluorescent tubes or standard fluorescent tubes. It's just as each new technology comes along.... We'e had compact fluorescents raised as a possible issue now as well. There are new technologies. High frequency is being used to stimulate them. Lord knows where it will go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Palmer, I believe I saw you raise your hand.

[Rodney Palmer]

Yes. I have two quick comments.

The reason it isn't established like the peanut allergy is because it's currently unethical to conduct scientific experiments on children. As long as that remains, it will never--read “never”--be established, okay? So that's a ridiculous standard to hold us to.

I'll give you another ridiculous standard that just came out of the mouth of Beth Pieterson: “no consistent evidence to date”. Let's edit that. I'm not a scientist, but I was a journalist for 20 years in this country. I would edit that. I would take out the words “consistent evidence” and then the word “no” doesn't apply. You have to take out “no consistent”, so there is evidence that this causes harm.

They're throwing in what journalists so affectionately call weasel words when we hear from our bureaucrats and politicians. It's plausible deniability, so that when children start getting sick in bigger cities like Toronto, Ottawa, or London, Health Canada can say, “Well, there was no consistent evidence to date”. There is no consistent evidence by this standard that smoking for 40 years causes lung cancer, because only 30% of the people get lung cancer. so for that other 70% of the people, there's no consistent evidence.

So they're raising the bar, raising the bar, raising the bar.... If they get sick, well, it's only these kids. If it's more schools, it's only those schools, well, we want doctor's notes now....

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Pieterson, how many reports of adverse health effects relating to Wi-Fi does Health Canada receive and have you received? Also, what do you do with these reports, concerns, or complaints that you get?

[Beth Pieterson]

We haven't received any formal notifications other than the ones that Mr. Palmer is talking about from that school board. We--

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Sorry. So that's that the first one you've received?

[Beth Pieterson]

That's the first notice of a school board, yes. Other school boards...like the Ottawa school board, which has Wi-Fi, has reported no health effects. The U.K. system, which has Wi-Fi in many of its schools, is studying it in long-term studies, but it doesn't have any health effects reported to date.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Muc, there's something that you had touched on, and frankly, it's a fact of life that we use technology today. We use Wi-Fi. We use cellphones. How do we balance the benefits derived from these technologies over the concerns of exposure?

[Dr. Anthony Martin Muc]

I can't say that's a question I can presume to answer except as a citizen. I don't think it's a scientific question. I would say personally that we benefit greatly from these technologies. I have two grandsons now, one not six months old yet, the other about three years old, and our family uses cellphones, Wi-Fi, and all the technology. I have not the least qualm with their continuing to do so throughout their whole lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Bennett, did you want to comment quickly?

[Curtis Bennett]

When you talk about caution in using this, you have to bring the right professionals into this. Health Canada needs to go back to the electrical engineers and these other professionals and say there was a frequency conflict, because blasting this stuff through our atmosphere is affecting pollinators and everything else.

We have to be careful about convenience versus the right professionals to install this safely. Blasting this out across our atmosphere and in schools without that complete data is irresponsible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, but we're out of time for this round of questioning.

We're now going to our next round, which is five minutes for questions and answers.

We will begin with Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Pieterson, can you define the precautionary principle, please?

[Beth Pieterson]

I'm going to read it out, okay? I have it written down here. It's quite a complicated thing. I'm not convinced that it's interpreted well by all.

Health Canada uses it. There have been cases where it has been used; I think the latest one is the removal of bisphenol A in toys and things. It's used by regulatory agencies worldwide. It's “a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, adverse health effects” to underpin risk-related decisions. Risk assessments consider all data available in the scientific literature and focus on effects where scientists consider most relevant for human health, and based on such an evaluation, the department, or any other agency, takes action as required.

But the precautionary principle is used when there is only some evidence and it's not conclusive. In the case of electromagnetic fields, Health Canada's position is that there is sufficient evidence to show that adherence to Safety Code 6 will not cause harm to human health. That's why we do not advocate the precautionary principle in this situation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

There is concern out there. Is there a possibility with a scientific basis to use the precautionary principle in this area?

[Beth Pieterson]

At this point, again, I reiterate the department's position. There's no evidence that links the cause and effect, and based on the best science available and reviewed, we do not believe the precautionary principle is warranted now.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What would be the positive and negative impacts of using the precautionary principle here?

[Beth Pieterson]

I think the negative input is that it would impede some people's desire to use it, and it's impossible to block out electromagnetic fields from everywhere. You know, you walk down the street in Toronto, you're exposed to it everywhere, so yes, you could apply it in some areas, and you could weigh the benefit and the risk of that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, I'm going to ask one last question. If you could write the recommendations—we will be producing a report—what is it that you would recommend this committee do? One we've heard from you is that it would be good to establish an expert panel that should review this at regular intervals. What else would you like to see?

[Beth Pieterson]

I think it's very important that we encourage both the scientists at Health Canada and the scientists across the country to continue to do long-term studies as well as the type of biologic studies that Dr. Prato recommended, which he and some colleagues in Sweden are doing. I would encourage that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Can we hear from Dr. Blank?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Blank, would you like to come in and make some comments on this? Go ahead.

[Dr. Martin Blank]

I wanted to make a comment when we were talking about whether anybody has taken any action in connection with Wi-Fi. There was a much publicized case recently when the library in Paris actually eliminated this. It actually had instituted Wi-Fi within its structure and then, as a result of complaints and I guess their own study, they decided to just disband it. They got rid of it. I understand that the same thing happened in England in one of the school systems. I don't have that kind of information at hand.

But I just found out about a review that was written by Vini Khurana and a number of other colleagues in the International Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health—it just came out—in which they reviewed the effects of towers. Now, these are much lower-emitting kinds of structures, and they're probably more comparable to Wi-Fi than they are to cellphones. They point out that there are some studies...they are not very many and they're not very well-funded studies so they're not all that well done, but nevertheless there are indications that there are problems, including such problems as the development of cancer.

Now, there are two studies that looked really good, one done in Germany and one done in—