Health Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Dr. Frank Prato]

Can I make a comment, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Please go ahead, Dr. Prato.

[Dr. Frank Prato]

I just want to reinforce that. We had an independent panel reviewing Safety Code 6 and we came out with a documented review of the potential health risks in 1999. Now, it was reviewed and sent out for review, but that's not the same as peer review: you're absolutely right. So we separately, then, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews. We actually published the contents of this complete issue. Then we went on to publish updates in 2001, 2007, and 2009.

So the Canadian community, unofficially, is doing peer review evaluation of the literature. For Safety Code 6, the responsibility of Health Canada has been to incorporate changes on a volunteer basis, clearly, since the original evaluation. For example, in Safety Code 6 version 2009 there are something like 35 references. I was very pleased to see three references to my work—that's fantastic, because I'm not an author of Safety Code 6.

I was also pleased to see one publication where we stated that there is a potential for pulsed RF to affect the electrical activity of the brain, and we did that review. That was published in the peer review literature as well. Safety Code 6 acknowledges that work and acknowledges that there are effects; it's just that some of them are not reproducible, and also they're not necessarily detrimental to health.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. I'm going to jump in here. Thank you.

Is this something that we should be reviewing on an ongoing basis? For example, the Institute of Medicine might review something every two years. Should there be a formal report? There is a lot of concern out in the public. In your opinion, is there a scientific basis for looking at the precautionary principle in this area?

[Dr. Frank Prato]

I'm just talking for myself. I'm not representing any group. I would say yes.

I'm very scientifically interested in this field. As I said, there are discoveries going on all the time. The National Research Council in Switzerland put together a group to look at the possibility that RF power from cellphone transmitters could affect sleep. They've recruited the best people in the sleep business to look at this material. It has been published—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt. Would you recommend an expert panel for this for Canada?

[Dr. Frank Prato]

Well, we have had a process of expert panel through the Royal Society. That worked extremely well. It was not interfered with. It was—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Or the academy—

[Dr. Frank Prato]

The academy and.... Sure, I would suggest that we could do this formally, but I'm saying that Canada has not been let down by its scientists because it's being done informally and the material is being reviewed by peer review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Prato.

We'll now go to Monsieur Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I know that Mr. Palmer wanted to speak, and I of course will give him the chance to do so.

First of all, I would like to ask Ms. Pieterson a question. We see that Mr. Palmer has some fears that may be justified. When we talk about child safety, we can definitely be more emotional at times; we can be personally affected. I understand that and I understand Mr. Palmer's fears very well. Earlier you said no study had been conducted specifically on children, that you were ultimately conducting studies at large and that children were included in that.

Don't you think a study could be conducted specifically for the Simcoe schools? Perhaps that might break things down as to whether there is a genuine fear or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Monsieur Dufour, before they answer, I just want to also invite the people who are on video to just raise their hands. I will acknowledge you.

Monsieur Dufour, who did you want to answer your question?

First Ms. Pieterson will answer, and then, following that, Mr. Bennett.

[Beth Pieterson]

I think everyone knows that there are large ethical issues on conducting studies specifically on children, but there were studies done. When the safety code was developed, there were not live children but models of children's brains and of the size of children to look at the effects of radiation exposure on tissue that would be like children's. Let me just say that.

Second, the Interphone study, which came out in the spring of this year, recommended long-term studies on children. It was a multinational study that looked at cellphone exposure. One of their recommendations, which Health Canada thoroughly supports, is having longer-term studies on exposure, particularly with children. We're very supportive of that. We would welcome long-term studies, just as all the other studies are very welcome. As I said, we review them on an ongoing basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Bennett, would you like to make a comment on that?

[Curtis Bennett]

Yes, I'd like to.

Can you hear me okay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Yes. When you want to make a comment, make sure you raise your hand so I can see you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bennett.

[Curtis Bennett]

Thank you.

Listen, something very important on Safety Code 6 is that it is an incomplete document. With all due respect to the professionals working on this, you can't compare frequencies to children as if they're furniture. Mr. Palmer has every right to be concerned about this, because Safety Code 6 says this: that we want to avoid the unintentional stimulation of tissue. In examples, studies have shown nerve and muscle depolarization. That's not electromagnetic hypersensitivity: what happens when the nerves in the body aren't working? Again, because these children, and people in general, are effectively unprotected conductors, you're going to have this frequency conflict; you're going to have this change and something related to this process.

Now I'm a nationally trained government professional, and I contacted the health minister on this. I got back a letter even though I said to the health minister that what's changed in Safety Code 6 is that causality has been found, a biological plausibility has been found, and reproducibility has been found. I got a letter back from the health minister just prior to this meeting thanking me for my interest and totally dismissing my qualifications as well as the science related to the frequencies.

You have to immediately go to your electrical professionals, who are trained and certified in every province, and ask what would happen when you take these high frequencies and have them interact with another lower frequency. But don't equate them to children, because even the electrical professionals didn't understand--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. There are others who want to comment.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Palmer has wanted to speak for some time now. I would like to give him the opportunity to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Palmer, go ahead.

[Rodney Palmer]

I agree with our friend from Health Canada that it is unethical to experiment on children, yet this experiment is being conducted. If we look at the fact--not a fear, not a concern, but a fact--that there is not a single scientific study on children...exposing them to this level of microwave for six hours a day, five days a week, 14 years long, starting at age four, you are conducting that experiment. We are allowing that experiment to be conducted except that there is no consent.

Now, if Health Canada would like to conduct a long-term exposure study on children, could you please provide your own? Because my children have not consented to be experimented upon and yet they are every day throughout Simcoe County. This is moving toward Toronto and it's moving across Canada.

It's ridiculous to say let's just wait for some more time while I'm sitting here crying out loud and reporting to you that they're falling down, they're getting defibrillators put in their little hearts, and they are getting cardiac arrest. Hello: this is real and it's happening. And it doesn't go away because we pretend that on paper it's all safe.

Thank you.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's definitely not ethical to conduct studies specifically on children; I understand that. We also agree to acknowledge the problem that Mr. Palmer has raised. Whether studies are conducted or not, there currently appears to be a problem from what Mr. Palmer has told us.

Ms. Pieterson, earlier you said that misleading information had been communicated. I would like to know what kind of information that was and what you consider misleading.

[Beth Pieterson]

I think first of all that one of the misleading facts that is always stated about Safety Code 6 is that we don't consider the non-thermal effects. There's a lot of talk about biological effects and that not all biological effects are detrimental.

When all the scientists reviewed the literature considered for the setting of the limits in Safety Code 6--and as you heard, it's not just Health Canada science, it's the scientists across the country--we recognize that there have been reports of biological effects, but those biological effects are not necessarily detrimental, nor--some studies--have they been reproducible, do the limits set are based on thermal effects. But they have been considered. All those other effects have been considered--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

[Beth Pieterson]

--and they will continue to be considered.