Evidence of meeting #57 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Professor, I should just let you know that they were submitted and they're in translation right now, so—
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Okay.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
—the members of Parliament here won't have the documents in front of them. You'll have to be very descriptive if you're referring to anything specifically. Okay?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Very good. I'll pull direct quotes, then, in that instance.
The IARC working group—this would be the first document you'd be looking at—has a single-page summary of evidence leading to the 2B conclusion in 2013, based on the 2011 meetings, and 2B means “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. What the IARC means by that is, and I'll quote directly from their preamble:
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.
The document itself makes reference to a number of different studies that were broken down into occupational, environmental, and personal exposures. The studies that the committee thought presented the strongest evidence were specifically the case-control studies that have been referred to. INTERPHONE has been mentioned. The Swedish studies have also been mentioned.
It's important to understand what a case-control study is. As has been pointed out, the real way to find out if something is a health risk is, prospectively, to look over time at individuals who are experiencing the exposure, documenting rates of conversion to disease in the exposed versus the non-exposed, and then see if there's a dose-response relationship. In other words, do individuals with higher levels of exposure to a risk convert to disease at higher rates? As far as I'm aware, this sort of information is not available in human populations for RF-EMF, so we do the best we can with case-control studies.
Both the INTERPHONE and the Swedish studies relied on interviewing individuals with glioma, with acoustic neuroma, and then interviewing random controls. What they found was that in individuals with these neoplasms, or cancers, was that the individuals report higher levels of exposure than controls. The question of recall bias is really important in a study like this, because we're relying on indirect lines of evidence to conclude what the exposures might have been. These folks weren't carrying detectors on them for years and years. These are telephone interviews, questionnaires.
The important thing which IARC, to its credit, acknowledges, is the potential for what's called “recall bias”. In other words, if you have a catastrophic health outcome, you will naturally search for causal evidence for that outcome. If a well-funded scientific committee wants to talk to you, then the implicit suggestion may be that it thinks there might be a link there. As a result, anxiety rises, and it's not very difficult to imagine how individuals with a glioma might report, “Why, yes, I believe I did have higher exposure to radio frequencies.”
The IARC also concluded that although this was a significant bias, they couldn't completely rule out these studies on the basis of bias. What they concluded, therefore, was that there's limited evidence of carcinogenicity, meaning the quality of the evidence is limited.
I want to point out what a 2B means. The IARC, again in its preamble on page 23, says the following:
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals—
Wait. I've gone a bit backwards. I've already read that part.
I want to talk about what IARC means by “limited evidence”. The data suggest a carcinogenic effect, but it is prevented from making a definitive evaluation because, and I think in this case paragraph 6(b) is the most important, “there are unresolved questions regarding the adequacy of the design, conduct or interpretation of the studies”.
Of course this is an important signal within the literature and it's one that needs to be pursued, and indeed it has been pursued. The just-published 2015 text, Current Understanding and Treatment of Gliomas, which is available from Springer, the medical publisher, contains a book chapter titled, “The Epidemiology of Gliomas”; in other words, the causes and distribution of this disease.
Page 11 of that book reads as follows:
The scientific evidence used to produce the 2011 IARC report, as well as the scientific evidence reported since its publication does not support a significant association between use of cellular phones and risk of glioma. This exposure warrants continued monitoring and examination, as the potential risks of long-term heavy use, risk of use during childhood and adolescence, and length of glioma latency is not well understood.
However, the studies so far, in fact, would suggest against an association. Even in 2011 the strongest association that could be found was actually very weak.
Just to put this into some context, because I think Bill C-648, which in its own preamble specifically mentions the 2B classification as being relevant, there are currently 287 agents within category 2B. Essentially, if you cannot definitively exclude a risk, then you have to consider that it's possible. I'll give you some examples of what appears as possible carcinogenic agents: whole leaf extract of aloe vera, carpentry and joinery as an occupation, coconut oil, coffee, ginkgo biloba extract, kava extract, pickled vegetables, and talc body powder used perineally—in other words, baby powder.
The problem of scientifically proving a negative is very difficult. I can't prove to you that Santa is not real, because I'm not at the hearth of every single home on Christmas Eve. So from a purely scientific epidemiological point of view, I must concede it is possible that Santa Claus exists. But given the fact that scientifically I have to concede that possibility, it would be problematic to conclude that there is scientific evidence that Santa possibly exists. No, there is not sufficient evidence to completely refute it.
Epidemiologically speaking, that is how these studies are meant to be interpreted. Of course since, as the previous witness pointed out, the outcome is catastrophic, ongoing study is warranted. Studies to date, based on the latest and greatest evidence from glioma researchers and treaters, suggest there is no significant association.
As I said in my appearance before the Royal Society, I think Safety Code 6 is currently an adequate and satisfactory standard. I don't believe it needs to be changed. I believe if the committee wants to apply labels to RF-emitting devices on the basis of a 2B classification, then the door is open to labelling all 287 agents on the basis of their 2B classification. I don't know if that's territory into which the state wants to intrude to such a significant degree.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ben Lobb
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Ms. Moore, you're up first.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions are mainly addressed to Professor Leszczynski.
You talked a lot about conflicts of interest in the scientific arena. You said that it is sometimes complicated to obtain a scientific consensus and that in those circumstances we should apply the precautionary principle. This raises a lot of questions for me, particularly regarding vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, young children, seniors and those with compromised immune systems.
In your opinion, what measures should we immediately put in place, in light of the precautionary principle, so as to limit potential risk to these vulnerable populations? It could turn out that there is no risk, but we are talking here about being prudent.
Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski
We said earlier that when we began to smoke tobacco we waited 50 years to find out that it had some detrimental health effects. It was the same, for example, for the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. People got more cancer. We waited several tens of years after that ionizing radiation exposure.
Therefore, it is very problematic to say what we should do if later it appears that this was an unnecessary step. Should we protect ourselves when we are uncertain, or should we wait for the next 40 or 50 years for some sort of more definitive evidence and answer? But then we are facing another problem. What if indeed those epidemiological studies indicating that if somebody is using cellphone avidly....? “Avid” use was considered then to be using a cellphone for 10 years every day for half an hour per day. It was a long time ago—10 or 15 years ago—when cellphones and using them were expensive. People were not using them so much. Nowadays, with free minutes from the operators, people are using cellphones much more than before.
Already in 2011 we had those two sets of studies, the INTERPHONE one and the studies from Sweden. They were considered by these 30 scientists and 26 of them voted that there was enough scientific evidence to say that this is a possible human carcinogen. So we had two studies, and then, in 2014, last year, another study was published. It was the same type of study, from France, done in a different population, and arriving at exactly the same result: if a person is using a cellphone for 10 years or more avidly, half an hour per day or more, the risk of getting brain cancer increases. Many people say this, as was mentioned just now about what glioma scientists are thinking in regard to the connection between cellphone radiation and gliomas. It is not exactly so, because they say that right now they don't have the evidence.
But we have to remember two things. First of all, cellphones have been in common avid use for not very many years, maybe for 10 or 15 years. They have been in use longer in Scandinavia, but at the beginning people were using those cellphones very little, because it was very expensive. In avid use, those cellphones last maybe 10 years, and we know that the glioma takes several tens of years to develop, 40 or 50 years. Therefore, when we expose ourselves for 10 years but glioma development takes 40 or 50 years, there is not the time for this exposure to affect this tumour that is happening later. There is simply no time for development.
We have to balance those two issues: one, a potentially serious outcome like glioma, and then, exposure to cellphone radiation, meaning not forbidding people to use it, but developing this technology better and limiting unnecessary exposure. What is better? Limiting unnecessary exposure and being sort of at peace with this, in that in 40 or 50 years we will not have a bump of gliomas? Or is it that we use cellphones widely, as we are using them right now, and rely on this point that within the first 10 years of avid use nothing was happening?
This is something like saying that within the first hour after midnight there was no daylight, so apparently there is no daylight, because it would be coming only eight or nine hours later. This is the sort of issue to consider.
I think that not only should we look into the population of normal healthy people, but we should also think about those populations you were asking about, people who might be compromised or weakened, such as children and pregnant people, those with threatened immune systems.
We are all different and we all may respond differently to this exposure because of our genetic predispositions and because of our environment. It is no wonder that there may be some people who would be more sensitive. Those who are more sensitive may be, of course, those developing organisms like young children, or developing organisms in the womb of mothers, or a person who does not otherwise have very good health or immune system and is not capable of combatting radiation exposure or the effects of radiation exposure.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Dr. Tarzwell, we just heard about the paramount importance of objectivity in scientific evaluation of technology from Dr. Leszczynski. We know that when you publish an academic paper, the expert reveals all potential conflicts of interest as part of that publication.
In the interest of objectivity, could you please identify to the committee your business enterprises that you're personally involved in, if any, that depend on Wi-Fi, cellular signals, or other wireless technology to succeed?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I'd be happy to do that.
I am a shareholder in a mobile gaming company called Hothead Games, based out of Vancouver, British Columbia. I was an investor in a telemedicine company called Medeo, which has subsequently been acquired.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
I'm just looking at Medeo corporation, which you say has been acquired, and a quote from one of their, I guess, flyers or their statement of purpose, says, “With Medeo.ca, Canadian medical care joins the mobile revolution”.
A quote from the statement of purpose for Hothead Games says, “to create and publish great games exclusively for mobile users.”
Do you have any interest in the One Minute Medical School?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I'm the creator of One Minute Medical School. That's a YouTube channel with short videos on medical topics.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
These would be videos watched by people who are interested, laypersons or medical students, mostly on hand-held devices. Is that right?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
In terms of the composition of the audience, that I don't really know. I assume there will be some viewership on mobile devices.
Conservative
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
You could say so. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who's not sort of intimately connected with wireless technology. If any of those are a significant conflict—
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
They are. I'm just saying there might be a potential conflict.
Would it be fair to say that any regulatory actions that the government might take regarding wireless communications or Safety Code 6 might significantly affect your business success in these enterprises?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Speculating, I suppose that's possible. I suspect not, but of course, it's hard to read the future. I certainly have to concede the possibility
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Is there a possibility of a potential conflict of interest when you present your credentials as an objective scientist to this committee, rather than in your other role as a business investor in a technology that depends on wireless?
Clinical Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes, and it's extremely important to be as clear as possible and as honest as possible to the data and the evidence, which is why I've provided the documentation from the sources that I'm relying upon directly, so that the committee can peruse these in significant depth, rather than simply just relying on the pull-quotes that I've assembled today.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Dr. Leszczynski, what happens to humans when we face possible carcinogens or other environmental hazards that industry tells us are safe, for example, tobacco, BPA, asbestos, and we wait for scientific consensus before taking prudent measures to avoid that hazard or banning it?
Prof. Dariusz Leszczynski
Of course, if we are comparing, for example, tobacco, if we are waiting tens of years to get final proof, during those tens of years people are exposing themselves to tobacco or another agent that is considered as safe because we don't yet have final proof. It means that they will get health problems during these 50 years or over a long period of time when we are waiting for final proof, final evidence.
There is this difference. When we have an agent that might cause health problems and we're waiting for final proof, and we have to consider tens of years of waiting, we should think this way. What is better, to implement precautionary measures right now and wait peacefully for those tens of years for the final evidence, or should we continue business as usual, and in case it appears that this health problem materializes, then during these tens of years of waiting people will get this health problem, meaning a large part of the population?
In the case of cellphone radiation, of course, we are talking in the sense that we always have to consider seven billion users.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you. Would you agree the world waited too long to act with regard to tobacco, and asbestos, and BPA?
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Would you agree that governments worldwide waited too long with regard to tobacco, and asbestos, and BPA, to take precautionary measures?