What about cumulative effects?
Evidence of meeting #54 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was studies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #54 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was studies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
As you said, a home has a number of radiofrequency sources—Wi-Fi networks, cellphones and several other devices. The limits established in Safety Code 6 apply to all sources of radiation. So all devices must respect the Safety Code 6 limits. However, I'm not sure if any studies have been carried out to determine the electromagnetic field level in a home with several sources.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Thank you very much. We have to keep tight time here for questioning.
Ms. McLeod, go ahead.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the witnesses.
I think I'm the only one who was here for the original report that we did, and I haven't been on the health committee since. I'm glad to see that even though Parliament dissolved, there was some process that continued.
I would like to ask that we ensure that the review of Safety Code 6 by the Royal Society be tabled as part of our study. I think it was a really critical piece of what we asked out of the last committee. If it has not been tabled already, we can perhaps incorporate it as part of this review.
There are a few areas. Obviously, at this point in time, you talked about what was a very robust process in terms of the research that you included and didn't include. I keep going back. I remember, for example, when—perhaps it was a couple of years ago—Dr. Zamboni's procedure for MS provided hope for patients and there was some research that indicated it might be helpful. But when we actually put in a proper process for evaluating the research, unfortunately it sounds as though to this day it is not something that is actually effective.
Having said that, this research is going to continue to emerge and evolve. Is the World Health Organization doing a massive review right now? Is that accurate?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
Perhaps I can ask Dr. McNamee to respond to that. Dr. McNamee has worked with the World Health Organization and is certainly up to date on the work they're undertaking.
March 24th, 2015 / 4:15 p.m.
James McNamee Chief, Health Effects and Assessments Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Yes. For the past several years—at least two years now—there has been an ongoing effort to assemble a risk assessment at an international level through the WHO's international EMF project. This process is basically a systematic review, wherein all studies are identified. They are assessed for quality according to a variety of required measures; the studies are summarized; and there is a statement of their strengths and weaknesses. Some studies that have very poor methodologies or quality are included in the analysis but are removed from the final decision matrix. But they are actually documented, so that there is a very clear, transparent accountability over which studies have been looked at, which studies have been included for risk analysis, and which studies have been excluded based on quality.
A draft version of that document was posted on the WHO website, I believe in December 2014. The public consultation was, I think, originally for 30 days, but it was extended to 60 days. I believe that period has now ended. The intent is to publish that risk analysis document by 2016.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Is it accurate to say that to date, from the evidence you have reviewed and what seems to be emerging out of the review being done by the WHO, our standards under Safety Code 6 are congruent with what the current research and literature indicate?
4:15 p.m.
Chief, Health Effects and Assessments Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Yes. The reviews by international health agencies and NGOs have been quite consistent in their conclusions of an absence of adverse health effects below the exposure limits, in standards such as ICNIRP, which is applied throughout Europe and in about 100 countries. In fact, Safety Code 6 is now more restrictive than the ICNIRP standard in most frequency bands.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
As I go through the list it's interesting because, of course, we have some people who express concerns. But I also have people who are regularly asking for cellphone towers and coverage of all sorts, so I think there is this real dilemma in the population and what really are tools of living now.
I see that in Switzerland they have this really low rate. First of all, perhaps you could speak quickly about the dynamics of it. Second—and maybe to Industry Canada—do they possibly achieve those limits, and if they do, then is Canada's exposure really down that low?
Could people speak to that, please?
4:15 p.m.
Chief, Health Effects and Assessments Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Perhaps I'll start.
A couple of other states or cities, such as City of Toronto in this case, have a policy that requires emissions from cellphone towers to be perhaps 100 times below the national limits, such as Safety Code 6, or ICNIRP, for that matter. While Switzerland's basis is on ICNIRP, for public exposure from cell towers or other infrastructure, they require it to be 100 times below that science-based limit.
That's a public policy approach that has been taken by these governments. It's not necessarily applied to other wireless devices, such as Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, or cellphones, so it's very targeted at a very specific type of technology that is unpopular at times.
I think it's very important to make the distinction that this is a very specific action taken for a specific type of installation.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Peter Hill Director General, Spectrum Management Operations Branch, Department of Industry
Hello. My name is Peter Hill. I'm with Industry Canada, the regulator of cellphone sites, etc.
I can tell you, based on our experience over decades, that the grand majority of cellphone towers are hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of times below Safety Code 6 limits already. In fact, the change to Safety Code 6 had no impact on the power levels associated with those.
The exposure that we do from a regulatory perspective is the cumulative effect, to answer the earlier question. It is all cumulative, so if there are five cellphone towers in a particular area, regulatory compliance is brought about by the cumulative effect. We verify that on a regular basis around the country.
As I said, very few sites even come within 50% of Safety Code 6, and the ones that get closer are high-power broadcast sites that are generally located far away from where people live. The issue is proximity and power levels at these kinds of locations.
At the end of the day, most sites in Canada are thousands of times below Safety Code 6 already.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much.
I want to thank you for coming here to let us discuss and listen to something that is going to be more and more important. As a politician, I can tell you that it is something I'm hearing from my constituents a lot. So the ability to shed some light and to look at some good public policy on this, I think, is really important at this time.
I want to ask a couple of question. For instance, I noted that the panel didn't do a comparative, in-depth analysis of new literature. I understand that the panel felt they weren't asked to do that. Did the panel do an extensive, comparative review of recent literature?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, As an Individual
Yes, we did look at recent literature.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Director, Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, As an Individual
Yes, with each of the targeted potential adverse health effect areas, we tried to look at papers that were published on those specific areas in the years where there was, for instance, a good comprehensive review available. For cancer, which is my area, we looked at the International Agency for Research on Cancer's evaluation, and then we tried to identify papers that were published since that time, and then looked at the entire body of research that was done. That was indeed what we did.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
If there is no database that looks at clusters of new diseases, new cancers, etc., in people who have had extensive cellphone usage, and that is age-related and based on frequency of use, and of course the cumulative effect.... Especially in children, how do you gauge the cumulative effect when it is only in the last three or four years that we have seen people exposing their kids as young as two or three years old to cellphone use, etc. Now, there is obviously no study done on the longitudinal effects of cumulative use, etc., because these kids are still little.
Do you not feel that it is important to have some kind of database that looks at clusters, that is reporting clusters, or that physicians may be asked to look at any kind of possible cause and effect on new cancers among people based on the frequency of their cellphone use, the cumulative effect, and age-related use? Has that been done? Has Health Canada tried to set up such a database or reporting system of some kind?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
I would note first of all that health care is a shared responsibility, as the members know. Actual health care delivery and treatment dealing with people who have cancer largely falls to the provinces. Certainly both levels of government can legislate when it comes to health, but when it comes to what the provinces are doing as far as cancer epidemiology is concerned, I can't comment. From Health Canada's perspective, I'm not aware of databases that Health Canada has established to look at cancers and perhaps clusters, but I think there is a question of jurisdiction here that would have to be considered as well.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
With due respect, I disagree with you. I think when you look at drugs and look at setting up drug reporting systems, Health Canada does that. This is a federal responsibility, to collect information across the country on data that is coming out on drug use, the adverse effects of the use of drugs, etc.
Since it is the Government of Canada that okays and sets up the whole safety code and the use of cellphones, the setting up of cell towers, etc., I would think it incumbent upon the federal government to collect that kind of data, because as we well know, this is a very large country, and very different provinces have very different usage in numbers of cell towers, etc. I would think this is a real role for the federal government, and I wonder why, if one could do it on the adverse effect of drugs, one couldn't do it on the adverse effect of the use of certain technologies.
I think it's a real question. The federal government is responsible for all Canadians; the provinces are only responsible for their provinces. If we're looking at safety and health—because we are looking at the interaction between safety and health—it would seem to me to be like falling off a log if we didn't do this very important, and common sense, thing to want to do.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Department of Health
I think that what you're suggesting would be fairly complex to implement. I understand the reporting of adverse events associated with drugs to the federal government, and I think it makes sense when the federal government is approving these drug products.
I'm not a physician and so can't comment from a strong knowledge base, but there are many types of cancers. How would they be associated with a particular cause?
I think there are many details associated with what you're suggesting that would make it a very complicated proposal to implement, but it's certainly an interesting suggestion.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I would say that it in fact is no more complex than looking at the causative effect between smoking and cancers, which has obviously a history, taken by doctors and by smoking and eventually finding out the relationship. It is something that again is what we do with epidemiology. Epidemiology should be looking at some of these relationships.
I just think it is important for us to start ensuring that we keep a watching brief on what is going on with new technologies and monitor where the causative relationship is. We did it with cigarettes; we found it out with a lot of things that we did not know of before; and we now find cause and effect with lots of usage or lack of usage of certain foods, etc. This is a normal part of finding a way, to collect good data based on clinical medicine and outcomes and disease. That's what epidemiology is, disease clusters. Why are they there? How are they there? What are the causative effects?
If an epidemiological basis exists for looking at these new technologies, which are being used so frequently now, it is really important for us to keep a tab on them. I know that everyone thinks the precautionary principle is a joke, but it isn't. If we had observed the precautionary principle a long time ago, we could have prevented many of the diseases we now have that are very rampant.
I'm not saying that the precautionary principle should stop progress or stop the use of technology, but there needs to be some kind of data, some kind of watching brief done by the federal government on the way the country and various regions...and one may find a causative relationship between why things happen in region A and don't happen in region B that have the same frequency or duration.
I think this is an important part of new epidemiology. It's no longer that we're looking at cause and effect of the disease, of viruses, of bacteria; we now have to look at new kinds of things, such as technology and what its impact—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
And did you not ask for that, Mr. Demers? I thought you guys asked for that research.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative