Wireless radiation safety hearing criticized 
Expert panel from Royal Society of Canada reviewing updates to Health Canada guidelines

CBC News      Posted: Oct 28, 2013 4:36 PM ET      Last Updated: Oct 28, 2013 4:36 PM ET

An expert panel reviewing updates to Canadian safety guidelines for wireless devices heard from members of the public at a hearing Monday, including a group that accuses Health Canada of interfering with the process.

“I think the process is fundamentally flawed,” 
said Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology, at a news conference Monday, after addressing an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada at an all-day public hearing in Ottawa.

The Royal Society’s expert panel is reviewing 

Royal Society of Canada expert panel

A Royal Society of Canada expert panel is reviewing recent updates to Health Canada guidelines at the government’s request to ensure that they protect the public from the potential health effects of radio waves from wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and cellphone towers.

recent updates to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guidelines at the government’s request to ensure that they protect the public from the potential health effects of radio waves from wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi routers and cellphone towers. 

How wireless technology can affect the body

Aside from the public hearing this week, the expert panel will be largely relying on the scientific literature when recommending to Health Canada whether changes should be made to Safety Code 6, said Royal Society spokesman Russel MacDonald. It will also be accepting written comments until the end of the week. 

Health Canada accused of interference

Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada, was among 35 people scheduled to speak in person or by videoconference at the public hearing. At the news conference, Clegg accused Health Canada of not being open and transparent about the review process. His group has posted online documentation from Health Canada that includes suggestions for what kinds of experts should be on the expert panel and a list of questions to be addressed in the report, which are blacked out in the copy released under the Access to Information Act.

“In my opinion, they prove that there’s interference,” he said. “They do not allow the Royal Society to truly work on their own, independently.”

His group wants Health Canada to adopt lower exposure limits for radio frequency, citing lower limits in countries such as Switzerland, Italy, France, China and Russia. The group is lobbying on behalf of people who say they are highly sensitive to radio waves. It is asking Health Canada to acknowledge that their “electrosensitivity” exists and put in place a process to “receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions” to wireless devices.

On a website about its previous review in 1999, the Royal Society noted that the use of wireless devices has increased dramatically. It added that while the radio frequency fields used for communications devices are typically very low, such fields “can be hazardous at sufficiently high exposure levels,” as shown by their ability to heat food in a microwave oven.

The code applies only to federal employees and federally operated devices, but is also used by Industry Canada as a basis for its licensing agreements with telecommunications providers.

According to Health Canada, the guidelines were first published in 1979. They were most recently revised in 1999, when they were previously reviewed by the Royal Society, and in 2009.

The public hearing had previously been scheduled for July. However, the Royal Society announced at the end of June that it would be postponed due to “a large outpouring of interest in this event.”

Around that time, the Royal Society had also confirmed it had received comments about potential conflicts of interest affecting several members of the expert panel, and in July, the chair of the panel Daniel Krewski, had stepped down amid the accusations.

In September, the society announced a new chair, Paul Demers, director of the Cancer Care Ontario’s Occupational Cancer Research Centre and scientific director of Carex Canada, a workplace and environmental carcinogen surveillance program based at the University of British Columbia. The society also announced two new members of the panel to replace members who had left due to “family reasons and academic commitments.”

Straight to the Source


Curtis Bennett, 2013 10 30:

"This panel has serious work to do with causation reported linking the frequencies to adverse health effects. Causation being reported substantiates the reporting of adverse health effects except it isn't limited to people thinking they are sensitive to EMFs.

The science of electricity, frequencies and EMFs interacting with whatever they hit can be very complex science. There are very real reasons we wire development and industries of the world. Wires have known conductors, are insulated and when wires are together the EMFs cancel each other out. Wireless requires special considerations because there is no insulation and everything hit by the frequencies is in the electrical circuit.

Safety Code 6 is the applicable code across the country for limits of human exposure to RF EMFs and uses the same science standards as the FCC or other governing agencies. The strength of the code is that unintentional stimulation of tissue is to be avoided as is the heat effect. An example of intentional stimulation of tissue is medical imaging in a controlled environment, an intended position of use with protective clothing covering other parts of you. The alarming part of Safety Code 6 is a code that admits causality and biological plausibility is missing that links the frequencies to adverse health effects. It says on page 3 of SC6 that the code is revised to reflect new science and this is that time with causality and biological plausibility reported.

This Royal Society heard for the first time that the only reason there hasn't been one peer reviewed study showing the reported adverse health effects is because both sides aren't even discussing the same science. One side is reporting biological effects and Safety Code 6, the FCC and others rely on the Specific Absorption Rate for limits of exposure. Safety Code 6 admits the RF EMFs are inducing currents into people but not enough to heat your water molecules.

Under cross examination in the FortisBC application for wireless smart meters, engineer Mark Warren took exception to my comments on 17,000 sq. kms being irradiated to communicate with the meters. His next answer acknowledged their coverage area of 17,000 sq. kms will be covered with these high speed, penetrating frequencies. Keep in mind the Specific Absorption Rate test adopted by Canada, FCC, etc didn't include the grid in their test on safety.

FortisBC "expert" Dr. William Bailey admitted under cross examination that the bio electrical information associated with human biology isn't in their Exponent Report. He further admitted the bio-electrical information wasn't in Safety Code 6 either. When asked about nerves being stimulated and whether hormonal and immune systems are also affected, Bailey confirmed the connection.

FortisBC "expert" electrical engineer Yakov Scholnikov stated under cross examination that it would be his duty to revise the reporting if information was left out. Scholnikov also confirmed frequencies penetrating the ground up to a meter but equated it to people breathing when the frequencies hit buildings. He isn't qualified to speak on building engineering and to refer to frequencies going through walls, roofs and people as breaths of air or snoring is ridiculous. For me as an electrical professional, it disgusts me to see an electrical engineer talk over and around people to protect their flawed report on safety. Their Exponent Report is baseless science and not applicable. When I asked the electrical engineer if the frequencies could induce electrical charges inside buildings causing fires or explosions, he said it was possible but not probable.
My cross examination of the expert panel starts on page 102 of the BCUC transcripts. http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Fortis_BC_AMI_Vol_6.pdf

Causality is an electrical mechanism with frequency interaction with blanket coverage. As soon as you add the missing bio-electrical information in Safety Code 6, you have causality and biological plausibility showing how people are hit. Our children and teacher are being radiated in classrooms. Wi-Fi safety left out the routers putting all the people in the circuit. How on earth do we grade children on intelligence while we affect them neurologically with electromagnetic induction.

This won't be popular but people need to get over it. When a code says it is missing critical data, alarm bells should go off. This big problem was created because precaution wasn't used at that time.

It is further ridiculous that anyone refer to the meters transmitting a minute a day when the grid and exposure is on 24/7. Human, pet, buildings, infrastructure, trees, crops, bees, salmon, etc get 24/7 dosage of electromagnetic radiation.

Remember this, the grid was installed without telling education, science, medicine, insurers, etc. Here is a letter sent to the City of Toronto and it has diagrams of the science used and the science missed. There is also a link to the letter from medical education on the fact the frequencies are now lectured in medical education for education credits. Keep in mind the scope of medical diagnosis has changed with the grid hitting people from head to toe.

The Royal Society has to do their job and revise the code. This blanket frequency deployment will adversely affect everything on the planet. Ontario had meetings with Agriculture Canada on bees disappearing and the blamed pesticides. When FortisBC layers and "experts" answered questions on bees using the earth's magnetic field and what happens when they are hit by the RF EMFs cycling billions of times per second? They said they will adapt and tried to use the specific absorption rate for safety.

Frequencies are cycles per second and the damage is measurable by the second. Lawyers need to know causation is know[n] and 100% of the people in the coverage areas have a lawsuit. If this frequency bombardment isn't addressed, it will redefine science and education. Universities will have to adapt all sciences or the sciences will no longer be accurate. It will not be insurable or sustainable."

Thermoguy, 2013 10 30:

"Safety Code 6 admit[s] missing causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility. Page 9, paragraph 2 of SC6 is below."

"At present, there is no scientific basis for the premise of chronic and/or cumulative health risks from RF energy at levels below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6. Proposed effects from RF energy exposures in the frequency range between 100 kHz and 300 GHz, at levels below the threshold to produce thermal effects, have been reviewed. At present, these effects have not been scientifically established, nor are their implications for human health sufficiently well understood. Additionally, a lack of evidence of causality, biological plausibility and reproducibility greatly weaken the support for the hypothesis for such effects. Thus, these proposed outcomes do not provide a credible foundation for making science-based recommendations for limiting human exposures to low-intensity RF energy." 

Causality was reported linking frequencies to health effects.

Biological plausibility was reported to Health Canada. Bio electric info associated with humans isn't in Safety Code 6.

Causality and biological plausibility found substantiates biological harm. The SAR isn't applicable science, admits inducing currents but not enough to heat water molecules.

FortisBC engineer Mark Warren confirmed FortisBC will electromagnetically induce 17,000 sq. Km.

Bees use the earth's magnetic field and FortisBC lawyers and experts stated they will adapt to the RF EMFs. Agri Canada reported bees responsible for 35% of world food.

This code will be revised to protect the public.

Here is a letter to Toronto showing the science used and missed.


Bookmark and Share

Educational and Informational Purposes: All information on this site and all links that are linked to from StayOnTheTruth.com represent solely the opinions of their producers.

This information and links to more information are made available to you as a resource for your own research and evaluation not as an endorsement.

StayOnTheTruth.com is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe anything that that is presented linked to from this site; however, it does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own judgement about very important things that affect your life.

Fair Dealing and Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair dealing' or 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in copyright law. In accordance with the Fair Dealing or Fair Use intention, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair dealing' or 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.

© Copyright 2022. All Rights Reserved. "Stay On The Truth", Dianne Knight