Health Committee on March 24th, 2015

[Andrew Adams]

Mr. Chair, may I just respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Do so very briefly, sir.

[Andrew Adams]

I would just like to mention that we realize that the WHO's IARC has classed RF as a possible human carcinogen. Health Canada certainly is monitoring the scientific literature when it comes to what is going on with cancer and RF fields and will continue to do so. If there were some indication that the link is strong—at the moment there is some indication that there is something, but I think it needs a lot more research, as the Royal Society suggested....

I would also like to mention that we are already doing cancer surveillance in the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. So the portfolio already is part of overall cancer surveillance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Young, go ahead, sir.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and welcome, everyone.

Mr. Adams, this chart was modified, revised from a chart from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control.

[Andrew Adams]

May I ask what chart you're referring to, please?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It's a chart of radio frequency exposure limits in different countries.

[Andrew Adams]

Okay.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Were China and Italy removed from this chart?

[Andrew Adams]

I can't comment on that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I'll tell you why I ask. The two at the bottom are the lowest levels. They are Russia and Switzerland. China and Italy also have extremely low levels. Had they been included, it would have told a significantly different story. In fact, that's 1.2 billion people who are covered by very low levels, well below the levels in Safety Code 6. I was a little disappointed by that.

I want to ask you, on record, why you expect the Canadian public to just take your word for it that you looked at 140 studies presented by a national group based in my riding of Oakville.

“Just trust us. We looked at them.”

Why can't you practise the scientific method and put together a report that says, “We reject this study because it was the wrong frequency. We reject this one because it wasn't repeatable,” or some such thing? That's the scientific method.

Why don't you have enough respect for Canadians to show them why you reject the studies or why you accept them. What is your methodology?

[Andrew Adams]

I can assure you, as I did during my opening remarks, that we did look at the 140 studies. Most of those studies had already been looked at when the safety code was updated, but—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

No, I'm just asking you specifically why you don't just publish your thoughts. You looked at the studies. Somebody could put together a paragraph on each one saying why it was accepted or rejected

Let me just leave you with that question, because I'm going to try to get three questions in.

[Andrew Adams]

Okay. It was my understanding that we've already provided a summary of—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I'm not talking about a summary, I'm talking about a scientific monograph. I know you haven't done it and I'll just leave you with that thought.

In 2010, your director general, Beth Pieterson, testified before this committee—and it must have been very important because it was her primary evidence—and here's what she stated:

To our knowledge, there is no major jurisdiction in the world that has banned Wi-Fi from schools based on scientific evidence available.

Since that time, France has banned Wi-Fi in daycare centres and nurseries; Taiwan has banned children under two from using radio frequency devices, cellphones; Belgium has banned sales of mobile phones to children under seven, and banned advertising to children; Israel has banned Wi-Fi in schools if there is an EHS sufferer present, and they are testing levels of electromagnetic radiation in every school. By the way, the total population of these countries is 108 million, so that's pretty major.

Doesn't that make you rethink everything you've said thus far? If it were that important back in 2010 when no other countries had done anything, doesn't it make you want to rethink everything you've said thus far on Safety Code 6, now that they have?

[Andrew Adams]

Not at all. I have confidence in Safety Code 6 and in how we've developed it. I think it is a solid piece of work. I think that's been confirmed by the Royal Society of Canada's review. I think the fact that it is consistent with the WHO and other international reviews just supports that all the more.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you very much.

I read your Safety Code 6. I've read all those documents, all the links you showed, and I read the latest one. I read about nerve stimulation, excitable tissue, dosimetry, and I read quotes such as that the evidence does “...not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations...”.

Frankly, it doesn't tell me what I need to know and it doesn't tell me what my constituents need to know. No evidence of harm does not mean safe. That's the industry line. They always say there's no evidence of harm. They just repeat it ad nauseam. But it's not their job to keep Canadians safe; it's your job.

[Andrew Adams]

And we're doing it.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Here's what I need to know. Please tell me.

This is a question posed to me by one of my constituents that I repeat to you because I need the answer. The constituent said, please tell me in plain language, can you assure me that it's safe to put my cellular phone to my head for an hour a day? I want to know how many hours it's safe to do that for. Can you tell me it's safe to have a baby monitor a few feet away from my two-year-old granddaughter's head for eight hours a night? Can you tell me it's safe for my daughter to carry in her bra year after year? Will it harm her? Can you tell me, is it safe for kindergarten children to have powerful Wi-Fi antennas five feet over their heads for eight hours a day, or should we simply put jacks into schools and take Wi-Fi out of the schools, as other countries have done; as France has done?

I'd like to know if anybody who's spoken thus far in support of Safety Code 6, as it exists, wants to put their reputation on the line and tell me that all those uses are safe, and that those people will never come to harm from cellphone radiation or electromagnetic radiation.

[Andrew Adams]

I think what I'm confident in saying is that if people use devices according to the manufacturers' instructions—and there are instructions about keeping cellphones a certain distance from the body and things such as that—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It's 25 millimetres.

[Andrew Adams]

If people follow manufacturers' instructions and those devices respect the limits in Safety Code 6, I'm confident that they do not represent a risk to Canadians.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Despite everything—despite the study done in Sweden, the Lawson study, which showed a four-times increase in the chances of getting brain cancer on the side of the head you use your cellphone on for long-term continuous use—do you think it would be safe? Or do you think they're all wrong and that their studies are useless and not worth paying attention to?

[Andrew Adams]

I cannot comment on that study, because I have not studied it. I'm not a scientist. I'm not familiar with that study and I cannot comment on it.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Maybe Mr. McNamee wants to comment.