{"id":6113,"date":"2015-04-13T12:26:46","date_gmt":"2015-04-13T19:26:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=6113"},"modified":"2015-04-30T19:46:47","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T02:46:47","slug":"parliamentary-health-committee-hesa-investigation-into-safety-code-6-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=6113","title":{"rendered":"Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA) Investigation into Safety Code 6 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

<\/h1>\n

for full version go to\u00a0http:\/\/www.c4st.org\/HESA2015<\/a><\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Highlights From HESA Hearings Day 1<\/h3>\n

[Click Below Statements for Supporting Quotes]<\/p>\n

\n

Health Canada admits studies show harm at levels below Safety Code 6<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada ignores the scientific research; its review is subject to bias and incorrect conclusions<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada and Industry Canada ignore recommendations from the 2010 Health Committee \u201coffer to provide information, including awareness sessions on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.\u201d<\/a><\/h4>\n

In its \u201cfact sheet\u201d, comparing Canada vs. other countries, Health Canada omits countries representing 1.2 billion people with safety levels below Safety Code 6<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada\u2019s statements to the committee conflict with statements made under oath in Quebec Superior Court on Feb 13th, 2013<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada admits there are no studies regarding the cumulative effects of several devices from wireless radiation<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada ignores the 2010 Health Committee recommendation to \u201censure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.\u201d<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada resists the request to have a database that physicians may be asked to look at any kind of possible cause and effect on new cancers among people?<\/a><\/h4>\n

Scientific expert calls for a special category for pregnant women<\/a><\/h4>\n

Health Canada Advises That 36 of the 140 Studies Submitted by C4ST WERE Included in the 2015 Safety Code 6 \u2013 BUT WHERE?<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

<\/h3>\n

Further Conflicting or Confusing Statements From
\nHealth Canada From Day 1 HESA Hearings<\/h3>\n

\u00a0(Question) HESA:<\/strong>\u00a0[page 16, time:1.03:23]\u00a0\u201cPlease tell me in plain language; can you assure me that it\u2019s safe to put my cellular phone to my head for an hour a day? And I want to know how many hours it\u2019s safe to do that for. Can you tell me it\u2019s safe to have a baby monitor a few feet away from my two-year-old granddaughter\u2019s head for eight hours a night? Can you tell me it\u2019s 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 antenna five feet over their heads for eight hours a day? Or should we simply put jacks into schools and take Wi-Fi out of schools as other countries have done, as France has done? I\u2019d like to know if anybody who has 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 those people will never come to harm from cell phone radiation or EMR?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

(Answer) Health Canada:<\/strong>\u201cI think what I\u2019m confident saying is that if people use devices according to the manufacturers\u2019 instructions, and there are instructions about keeping, like cellphones, a certain distance from the body and things like that. I\u2019m confident that they do not represent a risk to Canadians.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Support Bill C-648 – An Act Respecting the Prevention of Potential Health Risks From Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n

(Question) HESA:<\/strong>\u00a0“So despite everything\u2026 the study done in Sweden that showed a four-\u00ad\u2010times increase in the chances of getting brain cancer on the side of a head you use your cellphone for a long-\u00ad\u2010term continuous use, despite that you still think\u2026 do you think that would be safe? Or do you think they\u2019re all wrong\u2014that their studies are useless and not worth paying attention to?”<\/em><\/p>\n

(Answer) Health Canada:<\/strong>\u201cYes. So, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2010 and 2011 did a study on this. I was actually a member of that panel. We looked at all of the data. There were epidemiologists, there were medical doctors, and there were people who specialized in animal studies, in vitro studies, looking at all the various lines of evidence to determine what is the scientific basis for a potential cancer risk with RF fields.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

C4ST:<\/strong>\u00a0note that the reference is to the 2010 and 2011 timeframe. The recent studies from Sweden and France were peer-reviewed studies published in 2013 and 2014.<\/p>\n

\n

(Question) HESA:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cDid the panel do an extensive review of the scientific evidence\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

(Answer) Health Canada:<\/strong>\u00a0[page 12, time:51:11]\u00a0\u201c\u2026so that was indeed what we did\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

C4ST:<\/strong>\u00a0[page 24, Section 3.3 of the Royal Society Report]\u00a0\u201cThe Panel\u2019s mandate was to examine Health Canada\u2019s proposed changes in light of recent expert reviews regarding the adverse health effects of exposure to RF energy. It was not expected to do a comprehensive analysis of the literature.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

MP Cathy McLeod:<\/strong>\u00a0[page 10, time:43:49]\u00a0\u201cI would like to actually ask that we ensure that the review of Safety Code 6 done by the Royal Society be tabled as part of our study, because I think it was a really critical piece of what we asked out of the last Committee.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

C4ST:<\/strong>\u00a0We support the recommendation for an independent review. Unfortunately, Health Canada did not obtain an independent review.<\/p>\n

In a March 21, 2012 memo from Health Canada\u2019s ADM, discovered through an Access to Information request. Health Canada: Stated\u00a0\u201cThe research provided does not require extensive information gathering and review; Health Canada has prepared an accompanying rationale document\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Health Canada also suggested who the \u201cindependent\u201d panel members should be, as well as stating \u201cpublic meetings or input would not likely provide any additional value.\u201d\u00a0Click here for details.<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

On May 23, 2013, the lack of independence of the Royal Society panel was highlighted to RSC chair Dr. Grise.\u00a0Click here for details.<\/a><\/p>\n

After the resignation of the panel chair Dr. Krewski due to an undisclosed conflict, another letter was sent to the new panel chair, Dr. Demers.\u00a0Click here for details.<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hearings Day 1 – March 24th, 2015 – Full Recap<\/h3>\n

Official Minutes<\/a><\/h4>\n

Listen to Full Audio Recording<\/a><\/h4>\n

Read Official Transcript<\/a><\/h4>\n

Witnesses Appearing Before Committee<\/h3>\n

Health Canada<\/h4>\n