Dear HESA members,

Recent debate concerning WiFi in schools with concerned parents
resulted in Health Canada releasing a press release on Aug. 31, 2010 at
the following link.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ftr-ati/_2010/2010_142-eng.php The
major point of the release was to reiterate their consistent response
to concerns: “Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has
determined that exposure to low-level radiofrequency energy, such as
that from Wi-Fi equipment, is not dangerous to the public.”

I am writing to give you evidence that this is not true; in fact, I
would go so far as to call it a deception that has been perpetrated on
the trusting Canadian public for more than a decade. To substantiate
this strong statement, I will quote from the Royal Society of Canada
Report of March 1999, “A Review of the Potential Health Risks of
Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices” prepared
in response to a request from Health
Canada.(http://www.rsc.ca/files/publications/expert_panels/RF/RFreport-en
.pdf) At that time Safety Code 6 was essentially the same as it is
today.

1. Page 2 – “Safety Code 6 was explicitly designed to protect workers
and the public from thermal exposures.” This means that wireless
devices such as WiFi, cellphones, cell and radio transmitters, and DECT
phones are not in the category protected by Safety Code 6 because they
fall in the lower, non-thermal end of the electric spectrum. Health
Canada has continued to state that Safety Code 6 applies to the entire
spectrum. Clearly this is not true.

2. Page 2 – “There is a growing body of scientific evidence which
suggests that exposure to RF fields at intensities far less than levels
required to produce measurable heating can cause effects in cells and
tissues.” The Panel determined that studies show that somehow, at even
very low levels which are significantly below what Safety Code 6
allows, the radiation emitted by wireless devices causes physical or
biochemical changes not related to heat.

There are many “biological effects” that are addressed in this
report , and two of them are blood-brain barrier leakage and cancer
promotion.

The blood-brain barrier is a critical structure in the brain that
separates the flow of blood through the brain from the brain matter
itself. Leakage can lead to brain damage such as dementia. In the
Report, pages 44-45 are devoted to studies showing such leakage occurs
as a result of exposure to RF field at levels below Safety Code 6.

ODC stands for Ornithine Decarboxylase which is an enzyme found in
cells. Increased activity in ODC has been found to promote aggressive
and invasive tumours, which are often cancerous. Studies which
demonstrate the relationship between RF radiation below Safety Code
6 and the increased activity of ODC can be found on pages 36-42..

I have provided only a couple of quotes and references from only the
first few pages of an 150 page document, but I could have provided many
more which are equally alarming. Even with this report in hand, Health
Canada and even some members of the Royal Panel that wrote this report,
such as Dr. Daniel Krewski, continue to declare that there is no
evidence of harm below the level of Safety Code 6. As a result, the
exposure to wireless devices has increased dramatically. The Royal
Panel stated that as of 1998 close to 3.5 million people used cell
phones and estimated increases of 30-40% annually. Teenagers are
sleeping with cell phones under their pillows. Cell transmitters are
being erected on top of buildings and apartments, near homes and
schools. WiFi is being installed in elementary schools. Health Canada
is allowing proliferation of this radiation exposure at levels they
know to be dangerous, especially to our most vulnerable: children.

A new Health Canada guideline is required, one based on biological
effects. Of course, industry in Canada will complain. It will insist
that it cannot possibly adapt to a more responsible approach. But that
same industry already has in other parts of the world. Hopefully when
it does adapt, it will be more rigourous in its testing so that the
mistakes of the past will not be repeated.

Respectfully,

Sharon Noble

Victoria, British Columbia

Member of EMRHA