Health Committee on April 28th, 2015

[Dr. Riina Bray]

There are a lot of questions there, but the long and short of it is that the occupational medicine side of this has a lot of studies showing how workers are affected by microwaves and radio waves. As you know, this all started about 100 years ago, but now it's throughout our whole society. Adults are not the only ones being exposed. We don't have any studies on children. Are we going to wait until the children start developing cancers, etc., to act? We don't have any studies like that. We don't want to do longitudinal studies on a vulnerable population.

Yes, indeed, studies are missing, but they're missing because we've never had this amount of microwave and radio-wave radiation in our society, in everyday lives, in people's homes, in their bedrooms, at their schools, at their work, and at such high volumes. We're looking at all different types of frequencies and power outputs. We're looking at clusters of technology that have never occurred before. They're unprecedented in society.

Our ancestors...my grandparents and my great-grandparents had not a single ounce of this when they were in existence. It's 10 million million times greater for us than it ever has been. It's a huge amount that cannot be studied easily and has not been studied. Basing our actions today on studies done 30 or 50 years ago, or even occupational studies, does not help us at all. It's not practical and it's not what reality's about.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

You used in your remarks the expression “the canary in the mine”. I'm a mining engineer by profession. I can assure you that canaries have not been used in mines for many years. There are devices. Science has made great progress. I truly feel that in this case, on this topic, we are at the time when mining was using those little birds to check the quality of air in the mines.

Madame Nicol, you mentioned when you were working on the Royal Society panel that you were reviewing the science. What did you mean by reviewing the science? If there is not much that exists, what can be reviewed to come to any conclusive results?

[Prof. Anne-Marie Nicol]

As epidemiologists we have what are called hierarchies of evidence in which we evaluate studies based on how well they're done. There are specific ingredients that are necessary in order to consider a body of literature valid. It is the basis of my field and it is what we use.

The evidence fits into that structure best around thermal effects. The challenge is that the BioInitiative results, and all of the other science that's coming along, does not fit into the parameters of prudent epidemiology. What we need in order to make a science-based ruling, which uses that type of evidence, is to find lower level exposures and do the kinds of quality studies that would allow us to use that rubric on that body of evidence.

Health Canada could commission research. Industry Canada could do research. We could actually try to address this problem in a way that makes sense and allows us to rigorously evaluate it with the same degree that we evaluated thermal heating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

That's about it. Thanks very much.

We'll excuse our panellists here, our guests, and then bring on our new set, then we'll be starting right up and carrying on.

We'll now suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you very much. We're back in session and we'll try and keep tight with the time here so that we can get all the questions and the presentations in.

Ms. Herbert, can you hear us okay?

[Dr. Martha Herbert, Assistant Professor Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, As an Individual]

Yes. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Yes, we can.

We'll get you to present first, because you're using technology. You can start when you're ready.

[Dr. Martha Herbert]

My presentation is called “Evidence indicates a plausible link between autism and radio frequency radiation exposure”, and my name is Martha Herbert. I am a board-certified neurologist with special competency in child neurology and a specialization in neurodevelopmental disorders. I am a research neuroscientist.

I am on the faculty of Harvard Medical School, on staff at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and an affiliate of the Harvard MGH/MIT Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging. I have an extensive history of research and clinical practice in neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism spectrum disorders, and I have published research papers on brain imaging, physiological abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders, and environmental influences on neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, as well as on brain development and function.

I'll start with the increasing prevalence of autism, the numbers from the U.S.A., and its high costs. Autism spectrum disorder diagnoses are increasing rapidly in North America, as well as elsewhere, with profound effects on those affected, as well as parents, families, caregivers, communities, and societies at large. In the U.S., the rates have gone from three to four in 10,000, 20 years ago, to over one in 68 today.

Annual costs for treatment of an affected child can reach between $40,000 and $60,000 U.S., with lifetime support for an individual costs topping $1.2 million to $3.2 million U.S. per affected individual. This translates into approximately $240 billion annually in the U.S. The graph shows a striking prevalence over the last 10 to 15 years. Those are CDC figures.

In the next slide, you see there are many factors associated with autism spectrum disorder numbers, including parental age, greater awareness, increased diagnosis, and spatial clustering, but there is a large proportion in this graph, 46%—in another paper, from the University of California, Davis, it was 65%—unaccounted for by these other factors. Potentially, at least, some of that may be associated with environmental influences.

What is autism? It is difficult for many to imagine how autism could be influenced by environmental factors, but this difficulty comes from holding assumptions, particularly that autism is genetically hard-wired into the brain from birth or conception. While this assumption is referred to and utilized by many scientists in interpreting their data, the actual assumption is not proven scientifically, and probably cannot be.

More and more scientific and clinical observations suggest that we need to think about autism differently. Autism is not a broken brain. Many with autism are highly gifted, albeit with issues that are often dyspraxic, that is to say, problems with expression and coordination, not lack of capability, not purely genetic. Hundreds of genes by now are associated with autism. They are also common in healthy people. The environment plays a big role.

Autism is not a life sentence. It is variable and changeable. It can get worse and better in a day or even in moments. It is treatable, and some people lose their diagnosis. High intelligence is common. The assumption, now out of date, that low intelligence is by far predominant was never proven and is now not consistent with the facts.

Autism may be centrally about brain function, which is pertinent to the comments about electromagnetic fields and RFR, and it may turn out to be more about impaired or altered function than about altered brain anatomy, since the anatomical differences are subtle, while the functional differences are more striking.

Autism involves not just the brain. Multiple systems are involved. While it is defined psychologically by a set of neurocognitive symptoms, much research has identified many underlying systemic physiological disturbances at the molecular, cellular, organ, and brain nervous system levels. Researchers are starting to study the way these physiological functional disturbances alter brain function.

Particularly important is the electrophysiology, the brainwaves and other electrical properties of the central and autonomic nervous system. The underlying chemistry and health of the cells in the brain and nervous system set the terms within which the brain can function.

As it turns out, the alterations in cell chemistry and physiology that have been identified in autism have virtually all been documented as affective electromagnetic frequencies including radio frequency radiation. Other environmental exposures and genetic vulnerabilities may also contribute to this impairment of cell function, but the cumulative effect, the total load of these environmental stressors, is likely to be what causes autism and triggers or exacerbates its challenging behaviours, and we can do something about the contribution of electromagnetic fields.

So might EMF contribute to the development or worsening of autism spectrum disorders or conditions? My co-author, Cindy Sage, and I wrote a paper called “Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link”, which is published in the peer-review journal Pathophysiology as parts I and II in June of 2013. I also posted it on my personal website marthaherbert.org, and a short summary for a lay audience was recently published online in the Autism Notebook.

In this longer paper and in the shorter one, we delineate parallels between observed dysfunctions in autism and the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. The damage induced and seen in autism spectrum disorders includes oxidative and cellular stress, lipid peroxidation in membranes and other lipid substances, stress protein responses, genetic alterations and de novo mutations, altered membrane and barrier structure and function, calcium channel disturbances, and altered function at cell junctions. There's a slide schematically illustrating the different types of damage at the cellular level that are found in autism spectrum disorders and that overlap just about entirely with cellular functional problems that are inducible by EMF or RFR.

At a higher level of organization, there's a degradation of functional systems both caused by EMF and RFR and present in autism spectrum disorders or conditions that include dysfunction in energy and metabolism seen in the mitochondria and in altered brain glucose metabolism, alteration of important functions in the perinatal infancy period, brain cell structure alteration and damage, and melatonin dysregulation. Conversely melatonin can attenuate the impacts of EMF and RFR, immune dysfunction, and electrophysiological alterations.

It is very notable that these physiological disturbances are mirrored in many other common and costly chronic diseases. These include diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, neurodegenerative disorders, and more. The cumulative cost of these conditions is enormous to the point of straining our health care systems and economics beyond tolerance.

Electrophysiological perturbations are central to autism spectrum disorders and are also significant and overall effects of EMF and RFR. Altered molecular, cellular, and physiological function in the brain and body, along with altered immunity in turn, impact the electrical signalling activities of the brain and nervous system. Electrophysiological perturbations are seen in many conditions including seizures and epilepsy, sleep disturbances, sensory processing, diminutions of cognitive efficiency, and autonomic dysregulations such as elevated heart rate and stress reactivity. These features are all present in many or even most people with autism spectrum disorders. Moreover, these effects, when induced by EMF and RFR, occur at exposure levels substantially below Safety Code 6.

Let's talk about children's vulnerabilities. Children are not little adults. They are developing, and perturbations during windows of development may have lifelong repercussions.

In August of 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics addressed their concerns in a letter to the U.S. FCC about the need for re-evaluating EMF and RFR, given that exposure has skyrocketed while regulations in place in the U.S. date back to 1996, way before this exposure acceleration occurred. The AAP expressed particular concern about the use of devices like cellphones and laptops in pregnant and nursing mothers and children. Safety Code 6, it should be noted, has seen only minor modifications since being introduced in 1979.

Radiation from cellphones and other sources penetrates deeper into the heads of children, which leads to persistent stress on the cells in the brain, and over time, more and more serious problems can develop. Certain tissues...and there's a slide. It shows, from left to right, the greater penetration of cellphone exposure in the brain of a child, less in an older child, and still less in an adult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Excuse me, Dr. Herbert. We're at 11 minutes here and we're a little over time.

Would you be able to conclude soon and then we'll flesh it out more with questions?

[Dr. Martha Herbert]

Yes, sure. Absolutely.

There are differences in tissue and geometry in children's heads. The use of cellphones in children under 20 can result in a fivefold increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma, and exposure in utero and from birth is huge. Exposure concomitant body burden of other substances like lead can make the consequences worse.

The conclusion is vulnerability of children and individuals with highly prevalent and costly illnesses should be a major consideration in the discussion of risks. We need new public standards to go as low as reasonably achievable. There are many precautionary and also simple and practical everyday methods to minimize exposure to radiation that should be aggressively presented to the public in an educational way with particular attention to reducing children's exposure: banning Wi-Fi in day care, preschools, and up to grade 3, turning off Wi-Fi when not being used, and banning marketing of wireless to children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you very much.

Next up from the Environmental Health Trust is Dr. Davis.

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Devra Davis, President and Founder, Environmental Health Trust]

Good afternoon. It's an honour to be here, and I want to thank the committee for inviting me to talk with you today. I'm going to talk with you about the impact of electromagnetic fields on male and female reproduction from current devices. I want to stress that in Safety Code 6 they said they did not include some of the 140 studies because the exposure used was not adequate.

I'm going to skip talking to you a great deal about my credentials. They are in the next slide; you have an opportunity to look at them later.

I'll just say that I did my doctorate at the University of Chicago. I did three post-doctorates, the last of which was a post-doctoral master's in public health at Johns Hopkins University. For 10 years I was the founding director of the board on environmental studies and toxicology at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I also was a member of the group awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 for serving as a lead author on several chapters of the report for the United Nations on climate change. I was the founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and I've received various awards, including a lifetime achievement award from Green America, as well as a National Book Award for my first book, When Smoke Ran Like Water. I've worked with officials at the United Nations, and in governments in India, Japan, and Canada.

I'm pleased to be here today to try to work with the committee as it looks for advice on a very important and troubling issue. I want to stress that in my remarks today I'm going to talk to you about experiments that have been done on male and female animals—but one of those animals happens to be human, and I'll get to that in a moment—with currently used cellphones at current exposures. I want to stress that. What we see when we look at the studies that have been done at the Cleveland Clinic—which I think is well-known as an outstanding research centre—at the Australian national centre for research on male health, and in other institutions around the world is that they have all reported similar results to what I'm going to show you here today.

They've taken sperm from men and they have put them into two test tubes. One test tube gets exposed to cellphone radiation for two hours. The other test tube does not. Now, sperm will die because they're not supposed to live in a test tube, but the rate at which they die and what happens to them in that two hours tells you a lot biologically.

Let's look at the results from Professor John Aitken, who is Cambridge University trained. He is, in fact, a knight, so it's Sir John Aitken. If you look on the top left of the slide, at the control, the white box, those are the sperm that lived after two hours with nothing being done to them. On the right, the lower black box, is the number of sperm that lived after two hours of being exposed to a normal operating cellphone. On the other right, you see what we call a measure of motility, which is how well the sperm swim, and we need millions of sperm to make one healthy baby so they have to be good swimmers. Then on the bottom left you see an indication of damage to DNA, specifically the DNA on the mitochondria of the sperm—the mitochondria are the engines of the sperm—and you see that the control sperm on the bottom left have very little damage after two hours. The exposed sperm have almost four times more damage, as measured by standard laboratory tests conducted, again, by the equivalent of the National Institutes of Health in Australia.

Now, my colleague Stan Glantz, who is a professor of bio-statistics at the University of California, San Francisco, has concluded that based on all of the evidence—and I'm just showing you one study here—cellphones do, in fact, damage sperm, and they do it at a level that does not produce heat. So when Safety Code 6 repeatedly said there were no proven effects without heat, that did not include these studies. I think this is a very big omission, and I would think all of you here would understand that we have to protect sperm if we want to protect the continuation and the health of the species.

The next slide shows you a very interesting study that was done with a laptop directly over the petri dishes with the sperm. It was insulated so there was no heat, because we know that heat will kill sperm. This study again shows a significant increase in damage to the sperm that had been exposed to the laptop as opposed to the control sperm. These are very important results. Nowadays they call them tablets, because they belong on tables. They're tested 20 centimetres away from a body. Industry has advice about how to use these things, and I applaud them because recently they've become more forthright with advice, which I'm going to show at the end, about how to use these things safely.

I think the government's job is to make sure people know what advice is buried now, including that a laptop is supposed to be kept 20 centimetres away from the body. All of these little children with their iPads right next to their bodies.... Their arms aren't even 20 centimetres long.

I recently came from India where I was working with the government. It is conducting major research that is quite outstanding, and I think would offer some examples to what could be done easily here in Canada.

The Indian government sponsored research on mobile phone radiation, using a computer to generate the mobile phone signal. It was a standard generated signal. They exposed middle-aged male rats—maybe an age group of interest to this group—to cellphone radiation for two hours a day, for just 45 days. At the end of that, they did sophisticated biochemistry, and found increased DNA, lower testosterone, and lower fertility when the animals were allowed to breed.

If you look at the testes, which they did here, you see the normal testes—that nice, round, regular barrier. That's what we need. We need cells to be intact, to have a nice membrane around them. Cellphone radiation, as Dr. Herbert just said very eloquently, can damage membranes. It can disrupt the integrity of the cell. The damage test, as you see on the right, comes from the animals that were exposed; the ones on the left were not.

Now I want to show you a study that I think may explain some of what Dr. Herbert's results suggest. I want to stress that what I'm showing you here is one study; there are many of this type. They were done, in this case by a laboratory in Turkey, and were sponsored by NATO. NATO sponsored this research for years because the research is on radar. Radar, of course, is a form of microwaves. Cellphones emit microwave radiation as a two-way radio. The term used to describe that radiation is radio frequency energy. It is not a precise term. It is in fact a small form of radar. It is a form of microwave radiation. None of these terms—microwave or radio frequency radiation—is a precise term.

This study done by Turkey, and it's exemplary of others, took two groups of animals and exposed one group prenatally to a computer-generated signal to mimic a current cellphone. The results I think are quite stunning. If you look on the left, you will see healthy cells, all those nice, round, little circles. Those membranes are intact on the left, and you see them magnified—the control. If you look on the right and at the top, you see fewer cells and more damage.

I want to stress that this could explain part of what Dr. Herbert is talking about. What we're seeing here are alterations in DNA and membrane damage caused by prenatal exposure to cellphones. We don't know what's behind this epidemic of autism—we don't—but certainly this is an important hypothesis that needs to be fully explored and can be done.

The next slide shows the results of Dr. Hugh Taylor's work at Yale, which I know that Dr. Herbert is quite aware of. That study found that prenatally exposed animals produced offspring with significant behavioural problems, as measured by standard assays; essentially, a form of hyperactivity in the animals. Dr. Taylor says that the animals were literally bouncing off the walls, and this could be an example. We talked about Dr. Suleyman Kaplan's work on the brain; this may be showing you the consequences of that.

Finally, new data, which I'm sharing here with the committee for the first time, comes from the Korean government. Their ministry of science has released these numbers showing rapid growth in smartphone addiction rates—I need not tell you that there is an addiction going on, and it's an addiction classified by physicians and others as needing treatment, by the way—and a change in the number of dementia patients under age 65, when dementia is only thought to occur in inherited cases of risk.

Where are we now?

As in the opening comments, several other speakers have indicated that we must act on facts and we must take precaution.

Now let's talk about certainty. We asked about how certain we were about health effects. We can't be certain because epidemiology, which I do, predicts nothing; it only proves the past. Epidemiology can tell you about the past. It cannot and should not be used to try to set public policy. We can't wait for proof of dead bodies or sick people at this point. We have to act on what we know to prevent harm.

Several different governments have taken steps, and I will mention a few of them to you.

In Belgium, France, and Taiwan it is literally against the law to give a phone to a child aged two, and in Belgium and France, it's age seven. They're not allowed. There's actually a national law that was passed. Information on this can be found on our website. India has informally advised that nobody should use a phone for more than an hour a day, in government policy.

Health Canada's document actually supports this statement, and I commend Health Canada and I commend Safety Code 6 because it did announce that we should take special steps for children. That is in fact a policy decision, because we don't want to treat our children or the rest of us like lab rats in an experiment with no controls.

Simply to give you an idea of what the industry has done, Lloyd's of London and Swiss Re will not cover health damages from cellphones. They will not.

All the warnings appear now inside these devices. The bill that is proposed here would give those warnings and make them available publicly. We have done that on a website called showthefineprint.org. You can find that and more information on our website, and that is c4st.org. In short, it's better to be safe than sorry.

I'll be glad to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Lord, welcome, and it's your turn to present. Thank you.

[Bernard Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Bernard Lord and I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. I'm here today with Kurt Eby who is the director of government relations and regulatory affairs with the CWTA.

As the voice of the wireless sector in Canada the CWTA represents wireless service providers as well as companies that develop and produce products and services for the industry, including handsets, equipment manufacturers, content providers, and app makers. I'm pleased to be here today to participate in the work of the standing committee's study of Safety Code 6.

Let me state from the outset that the wireless sector in Canada does not set or impose standards or guidelines. Safety Code 6 is enforced through Industry Canada as the standards are set in Canada, and that standard is set by Health Canada and the wireless sector in Canada fully complies. The wireless sector will continue to be responsible in adhering to the science-based safety standards enforced by the Government of Canada and set by the Government of Canada.

We commend the committee for the science-based review you're conducting today.

The wireless sector, in Canada as well as around the world, is committed to a completely open process in the study of health and safety issues related to wireless technologies.

Studies of the health effects of EMFs have been ongoing for decades and will probably continue for a while to come. The overwhelming evidence of the credible scientific community, as determined and published in studies worldwide, continues to support the conclusion that there is no demonstrated public health risk associated with the use of wireless technology.

In fact, when we look at the way that Canadians use wireless technology we can safely state that wireless technology makes our communities safer. Canadians are among the heaviest users of wireless technology in the world. We enjoy some of the fastest, most robust networks anywhere you can find. It helps us stay connected with family and friends. It helps businesses be more productive, and we know that in times of emergency wireless technology is extremely important. An overwhelming majority of 911 calls made in our communities come from wireless devices. We also know that close to 75% of families—especially those under 35—don't have a traditional landline, and in fact, use wireless only.

Government agencies responsible for establishing safe limits for signal levels of wireless devices also support that wireless technologies are safe and are not a health risk. The signal levels from all wireless devices and networks are well below the safety limits established by Health Canada and other international governmental departments.

When exposures remain below the safety limits set by science-based EMF exposure standards, including Health Canada's Safety Code 6, no adverse effects have been proven through credible scientific evidence. The sector has always supported scientific research into this topic and fully supports any ongoing research that is deemed necessary by the respected scientific community. Just the same, the sector has always adhered to the science-based safety standards set by the Government of Canada and will continue to do so in the future.

I really thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I thought I'd keep my remarks brief and I'll be very happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you very much.

First up, Mr. Atamanenko. Welcome to the committee.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to everybody for being here.

You made a statement, Mr. Lord, that wireless technology makes us safer. We've just listened to previous witnesses, and Dr. Herbert and Dr. Davis, who may not agree with you. They've done studies on child vulnerability, the stress on the brain, autism. A previous witness has talked about the fact that there have been no studies on exposure levels in schools. There's a lack of accountability. We've been told that 3% of the population is affected severely by this technology. We've touched on childhood leukemia, potential DNA damage.

I presented at a hearing in British Columbia sponsored by the utilities commission on smart meters, and I also found industry dismissive, and that was Fortis. When we presented cases of some of the things I just outlined, they basically said if you can't handle it, that's too bad.

I'm just wondering why industry has taken this approach. Why there hasn't been more detailed study on behalf of industry, and why are you not applying the precautionary principle to ensure that there's safety for Canadians? Many studies have been done—and my colleague wanted to mention this—about the cumulative effects when we talk about smart meters, cellphones, wireless, and routers.

Have you been looking at any of these studies and why are you not concerned about the potential and/or the current impact to the health of Canadians? I'd like to have some answers from you.

[Bernard Lord]

I'd be very happy to answer those questions, and thank you very much for the question. I will address two things that you say.

First of all, we rely on the scientific evidence that is produced worldwide and we rely on the standards that are set by agencies such as Health Canada, and we comply with those standards. We don't set the standards.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Okay, I'm just going to interrupt you. I'm sorry, we don't have much time. We understand that, and that's why we're here because we're trying to review Safety Code 6.

There are other studies. We've just had Dr. Davis talk about studies. We've had other people who have appeared, and research that I've been through over the past couple of years, yet you're saying, about the studies that you are relying on and Safety Code 6, that everything's fine. I don't quite understand that.

[Bernard Lord]

I'm not the one who produced those studies so I will not defend the studies. I will defend the scientists and those scientists are hired and they conduct their studies independently. It is their role to set the standards to ensure the safety of Canadians. What I'm telling you today is that the industry and the sector in Canada fully comply with those standards. I personally believe that those standards keep us safe and that when you use the devices under the limits that are set, they are believed to be safe in Canada and around the world. There have been numerous studies, and there are all sorts of studies that have been done. The World Health Organization has concluded that if you use the devices according to the limits, it is safe.

When I say that wireless devices keep us safer, I can tell you that as a parent. I'm a parent. My daughter left today. She's in South America and she can communicate with me because of her wireless device. I believe it makes her safer that she has that device with her. Consider how many 911 calls are made in Canada using wireless telecommunication. It does keep our communities safer.

When you talk about the precautionary principle, it is applied by the standards that are set by Safety Code 6 and Health Canada. You should ask the scientists who have set that standard to explain to you how it is applied here in Canada.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

In your opinion, the fact that Belgium, France, and Taiwan have regulated cellphones for children, is this not a red flag that maybe we should be doing that for your children and others here in Canada?

[Bernard Lord]

My children are older than that now, obviously. That's something that legislators can consider. Legislators decide for all sorts of reasons to pass legislation.

What I'm suggesting today, and what I commend the committee for doing so far, and what I commend the Government of Canada for doing, is basing the regulation and their legislation on science, not just innuendoes or fear. Base legislation on science. If the science demonstrates that the standards need to be changed, change the standards, or keep the standards, but the industry and the sector in Canada will comply with the standards that are set by the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Perfect. Right on five minutes.

Mr. Young, you're up next, sir. Go ahead for five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Dr. Davis, I read your book Disconnect and I found it to be very enlightening. In fact, I believe it's important.

I have five minutes. I'm going to ask you three questions during that time. If you could provide around one-minute answers then we can get them all answered. I ask if you'd help me with that.

You're an expert on climate change. Most people believe that greenhouse gases play a causal role in global warming and in climate change. In this committee we've heard from numerous independent scientists that cellphone radiation, including from Wi-Fi, baby monitors, portable phones, and tablets plays a causal role in human health, including cancer and other diseases.

Would you say the level of evidence for radio frequency radiation causing adverse health effects is less, or at the same level, as the evidence for greenhouse gases causing global warming and climate change?

[Dr. Devra Davis]

I would say the evidence on the damaging effects of cellphone and other wireless radiation is as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence on climate change, which I've reviewed as a member of the IPCC.

I would also add that's the reason why Lloyd's of London and Swiss Re, in 1999, refused to cover health damages from cellphones. There is obviously a concern there.

I would further point out that there is advice inside the phone that tells you this, if you know how to find it. I would say with the evidence on the causal effect of mobile phone radiation on sperm, on pregnancy, on hearing, and on cancer—including acoustic neuroma, which is a tumour of the hearing nerve, and on leukemia, which we have less firm evidence on—there's growing evidence showing a causal impact, yes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently held a conference where evidence was presented with regard to health effects of radio frequency radiation on children. Could you please briefly tell us about this?