{"id":964,"date":"2010-05-10T15:28:32","date_gmt":"2010-05-10T22:28:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=964"},"modified":"2015-01-26T17:37:10","modified_gmt":"2015-01-27T00:37:10","slug":"parl-committee-on-wireless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=964","title":{"rendered":"Canadian Parliament Committee on Wireless"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Dr Sasco’s intro testimony on Apr 29th 2010 before Ottawa Parl. Committee<\/h3>\n

Good morning.\u2028\u00a0\u2028My name is Annie Sasco. I am an MD with doctoral training at\u2028 Harvard in epidemiology, two master’s degrees, and a doctoral degree.\u2028I have been working in cancer epidemiology for the last 25 years at\u2028the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the\u2028 World Health Organization.\u2028\u00a0\u2028During that time I saw a doubling of the number of cancer cases\u2028in the world, and that led me to question the reason why. I became\u2028interested in environmental contaminants, be they physical, as in the\u2028case of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, chemicals, or whatever.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I have been asked by Next-Up to be a witness here today. I think\u2028it’s important for scientists to sometimes go beyond the mere\u2028statistical results and see, if you are interested in prevention, how\u2028to push for policies. I think those types of organizations such as\u2028Next-Up are very important in doing exactly that.\u2028\u00a0\u2028On the issue of electromagnetic fields specifically, I have been a\u2028witness in several centres on that already, including, last year, in\u2028the French Senate in front of the Office parlementaire d’\u00e9valuation\u2028des choix scientifiques et technologiques.\u2028\u00a0\u2028What do we know today about electromagnetic fields? And what I\u2028also want to say is, \u201cWhen do we have enough evidence to take action?\u201d\u2028\u00a0\u2028With regard to electromagnetic fields, we have, of course. more\u2028than plenty of evidence of exposure; I think that exposures in the\u2028human population have greatly increased in the last 20 years. That’s a\u2028very recent phenomenon in terms of frequency of exposure of a\u2028population from multiple sources; and even if it’s a sole source at a\u2028low level, there is the possibility, of course, for interaction and\u2028for cumulative effects over time, since exposure starts in utero and\u2028goes on for a whole lifetime.\u2028\u00a0\u2028So we have evidence that there is ever more frequent exposure and,\u2028in fact, soon the problem will be that no one will be unexposed, which\u2028will make comparison difficult, and therefore epidemiology difficult.\u2028\u00a0\u2028With regard to biological effects, more will be said by other\u2028witnesses, I guess, but there are two groups, thermal and non-thermal,\u2028with the issue of potential general toxicity and whether these EMFs\u2028have a promoting or an initiating effect for cancer occurrence.\u2028\u00a0\u2028As for experimental studies, there have been too few, in a way,\u2028and most of them have been done by industry-funded researchers. There\u2028have been very few public studies done with public funds that have\u2028looked at the evidence in animals, although with regard to exposure to\u2028carcinogens, animals are usually good cancer models and long-term\u2028effects models.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Epidemiology is, of course, the most relevant. What do we know\u2028just on cellphones and antennas? There have been many studies on\u2028cellphones, the largest one being the Interphone study, with several\u2028thousand cases and controls, which was done in 13 countries on glioma,\u2028meningioma, parotid gland tumours, and also acoustic neurinomas. The\u2028final results should be out, I have been told, in the coming days. For\u2028the time being, results for several countries are already out, but not\u2028yet, to my knowledge, for Canada.\u2028\u00a0\u2028They show somewhat contradictory results, but nevertheless, in\u2028several studies or some studies there is a tendency for increased risk\u2028for the heaviest users even if that’s defined in different ways. And\u2028that’s exactly what one expects to see. At the beginning, obviously,\u2028we are still young, in a way, in regard to exposure in the population,\u2028but it could be just the beginning of a more frequent problem in the\u2028years to come. The issue of children being particularly sensitive to\u2028this exposure has to be underlined, although at this time there is\u2028very little data, and more is needed. Similarly, we need more studies\u2028with valid protocols to look at issues of actual hypersensitivity.\u2028\u00a0\u2028So do we already have enough to act on it? I think we have a great\u2028level of suspicion and already quite a lot of data that goes in that\u2028direction. If we want to wait for final proof, at least in terms of\u2028cancer, it may take another 20 years, and the issue then will be that\u2028we will not have any unexposed population to act as a control.\u2028\u00a0\u2028We may never have the absolute final proof, but if our goal is to\u2028reduce somewhat the burden of cancer and other chronic diseases in the\u2028years to come, we have enough data to go ahead with a precautionary\u2028principle to avoid unnecessary exposure.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Regulations vary a lot across the countries, whereas population\u2028does not vary so much, but we can come back to this later.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I thank you for your attention.<\/p>\n

Dr Johansson’s testimony on Apr 29th before Ottawa Parl. Committee<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a>Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028I could quickly answer that by repeating what some of the other\u2028speakers have already said.\u2028\u00a0\u2028It’s obvious that your safety code is completely out of date and\u2028obsolete, and that goes for any form of international or national\u2028standards body throughout the world, including the American IEEE and\u2028FCC and the international ICNIRP standards and so forth.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Low-intensity, non-thermal \u201cbioeffects\u201d and adverse health effects\u2028are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure\u2028standards. These standards are inadequate and obsolete with respect to\u2028prolonged low-intensity exposures. And they are only technical in\u2028nature. You have to understand that. I’m surprised that you have\u2028invited people from the industry. Health Canada must be dealing with\u2028the health of Canadians, not the health of the industry.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Therefore, you should get rid of any form of technical standards\u2028and introduce new biologically based public exposure standards that\u2028are urgently needed to protect public health worldwide. It’s\u2028definitely not in the interest of the public to wait.\u2028\u00a0\u2028………………..\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028Yes. It was a little bit hard to hear the question, but if I\u2028understand correctly, the question was about biologically based\u2028standards.\u2028\u00a0\u2028You have to understand that what you are talking about are\u2028technical standards based upon thermal heating effects in the acute\u2028stage measured in fluid-filled plastic dolls. It has nothing to do\u2028with the kind of bioeffects that are seen, very, very far below the\u2028ICNIRP values or Safety Code 6 values, and most likely you need some\u2028other form of measure.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I would rather bounce the ball back to you and say that since I am\u2028one of the lousy authors of the BioInitiative Report–\u2028\u00a0\u2028Voices: Oh, oh!\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson: –you should really read what the whistle-\u2028blowers tell you. If we are wrong, which I hope we are, because we are\u2028part of the mental fire brigade, and I want it to be a false alarm, of\u2028course, but I think several of the speakers have said….\u2028\u00a0\u2028And Canada, by all means, you are so very rich, you know. You\u2028don’t any need any economic support from the industry; you can give\u2028independent money, give it to the whistle-blowers and independent\u2028scientists, because if they are wrong, they will prove themselves\u2028wrong very quickly.\u2028\u00a0\u2028As Andrew Goldsworthy said, pinpoint some critical studies–for\u2028instance on egg cells, as Dimitris told us, and on sperm cells–\u2028because if they are destroyed, then you won’t have Health Canada in 50\u2028or 100 years’ time.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I think it’s very important for Health Canada to set up\u2028questions. I don’t see them at all; I don’t see what you want to do.\u2028\u00a0\u2028My summary of today is that it feels very much that at least the\u2028people present in Canada right now want to take a chance on children\u2028and the future just for a toy. If I am wrong, I am very, very happy,\u2028but please let us look at these studies. Also, remember that you can\u2028never, ever outbalance a study showing an effect with studies that\u2028don’t show an effect; you can only outbalance them with studies that\u2028are exact replications, showing and proving why the first study was\u2028wrong, and such replications are not around.\u2028\u00a0\u2028The replications that are around strongly support the conclusion\u2028that the current standards are obsolete and need to be revised, and\u2028actually I didn’t say that from the very beginning; it was the\u2028European Parliament.\u2028 \u00a0\u2028…………………….\u2028\u00a0\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028I was also just going to comment that it seems that the members of\u2028Health Canada do not quite understand the precautionary principle,\u2028which is outlined in the Rio Declaration. You should read it\u2028carefully, because it clearly says that minority findings should be\u2028fully reported and considered and that uncertainty should be the basis\u2028to take action. Action would mean a moratorium, safety precautions, or\u2028whatever.\u2028\u00a0\u2028The interesting thing is to look seriously, with adult eyes, on\u2028the scientific literature, and take away the studies that don’t show\u2028an effect, because they are, as you probably all know, of no interest\u2028in risk analysis. All the good car journeys would never impinge in\u2028risk analysis regarding car safety, for instance. If you look at these\u2028studies and really boil down the facts and ask yourself what kind of\u2028safety level you would have instead of an exposure standard, today\u2028that would be, in thermal measurement, zero watts per kilogram.\u2028\u00a0\u2028\u00a0\u2028Hon. Carolyn Bennett:\u2028It would be zero. Okay.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028Finally, I would add that I have heard over and over again that\u2028the levels of exposure are low. In the room you’re sitting in right\u2028now, just from the third generation mobile telephony, compared to the\u2028natural background that has been around for billions of years in\u2028Canada, you are sitting in levels that are approximately one million\u2028billion times above natural background. There you have your question\u2028mark: are we really built for a microwave life at such extreme levels?\u2028From the size, the question is very clear cut: no, we are not built\u2028for that, and we are not talking about a minor reduction.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Just a few days ago I submitted a paper to a major American\u2028journal. In it, we point to the reductions in public exposure levels.\u2028Taking into consideration the future, the kids, teenagers, the\u2028elderly, and the adults, the levels must be lowered dramatically.\u2028\u00a0\u2028And if I were Health Canada, I wouldn’t bother about the industry.\u2028I can tell you that they will come up with new technologies in some\u2028form. As a Swede, I hope that it will be Ericsson–\u2028\u00a0\u2028Voices: Oh, oh!\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson: –that produces tomorrow’s human-friendly\u2028green technology, at exposure levels far, far, far below what we are\u2028talking about today. If I’m wrong, then I would be of course very\u2028happy to be wrong, but that would also mean that thousands of papers\u2028would be wrong at the same time, and that has never, ever happened in\u2028science.\u2028\u00a0\u2028………………………..\u2028\u00a0\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028Well, you still have to understand that even if you are on average\u20285,400 times below Safety Code 6, you are still a million billion times\u2028above normal background regarding third-generation mobile telephony.\u2028\u00a0\u2028The interesting thing is that for all other wireless\u2028communication systems and exposures, you are mostly much, much higher\u2028than that. Therefore, you must ask yourself, do we, through evolution,\u2028have an automatic microwave shield built into our body, it being so\u2028intelligent, so that it will protect our kids in 2010 from the kinds\u2028of exposures produced and manufactured by Motorola, by Ericsson, by\u2028Nokia, and so on?\u2028\u00a0\u2028The answer is, of course, no way, we don’t have that, and\u2028therefore we must stop–\u2028\u00a0\u2028The Chair:\u2028Thank you.\u2028\u00a0\u2028 \u00a0 \u00a0Dr. Olle Johansson:\u2028The question is this: are we prepared to really take a chance on\u2028that? \u00a0 In Sweden, we always try to tell ourselves that it is to be better safe than sorry.<\/p>\n

Dr Goldsworthy’s intro testimony on the April 29th 2010 <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy:\u2028\u00a0\u2028I’ll do my best. I have sent the committee a lot of material\u2028containing scientific evidence, but what I want to do now is just\u2028summarize it, so I apologize for not giving references.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I had a lifelong interest in radio communications and was one of\u2028the first people I know to buy a mobile phone, but I’m afraid all is\u2028not quite right. As the number of mobile phones–cellphones–expanded,\u2028a whole series of weird health effects started to appear.\u2028\u00a0\u2028The cellphone companies had no idea what was causing them and\u2028still less of an idea on how to stop them happening. The only solution\u2028was to deny their existence, and this is what seems to be happening.\u2028They argue that because the results are not consistent, this is due to\u2028experimental error and can therefore be ignored.\u2028\u00a0\u2028But this argument is flawed because it doesn’t take into account\u2028biological variability. We are all the product of thousands of genes\u2028that interact with each other and the environment in unpredictable\u2028ways. Each individual is unique. Not every smoker dies of cancer, we\u2028don’t all have the same side effects from taking medicinal drugs, and\u2028we can’t all be expected to respond in the same way to electromagnetic\u2028insults. Just because everyone is not affected doesn’t mean that no\u2028one is affected.\u2028\u00a0\u2028They also say there is no plausible explanation for such diverse\u2028results. In this presentation, I’ve explained just how these effects,\u2028these multitudes of effects, are produced, and how modifications to\u2028the signal can put most of them right.\u2028\u00a0\u2028There are two mechanisms that explain nearly all of them.\u2028\u00a0\u2028The first one is based on the pigment cryptochrome. Plants use it\u2028to measure light and animals use it to navigate in the earth’s\u2028magnetic field. Both animals and plants use it to regulate their body\u2028clocks.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Now, Ritz and his co-workers, in 2004, discovered that bird\u2028magnetic navigation was disrupted by a radio waves because of their\u2028effects on cryptochrome. This is also true for insects and probably\u2028causes colony collapse disorder in bees. The radio waves don’t break\u2028chemical bonds, they just interfere with the transport of an electron\u2028between two parts of the molecule that is essential for its function.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Cryptochrome also controls circadian rhythms and the body clock,\u2028which regulates the sleep-wake cycle and also the immune system. The\u2028immune system works best at night. This explains the sleep\u2028disturbances found in people living near mobile phone base stations.\u2028It also increases their risk of cancer by reducing the ability of the\u2028immune system to cope with incipient cancer cells. It might also\u2028contribute to the decline of the bees, which are becoming increasingly\u2028susceptible to pathogens. As you all know, the loss of the bees would\u2028be devastating to our agriculture.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Fortunately, we can do something about it. According to Ritz,\u2028cryptochrome is sensitive to a broad range of frequencies, but they’re\u2028mostly below 10 megahertz. These are well below the carrier\u2028frequencies used in mobile phones, but are generated when they are\u2028modulated to carry digital information. They are due to harmonics,\u2028they are not essential, and they can be suppressed. The cellphone\u2028companies should do this straight away.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Secondly, there are effects on cell membranes. Low frequency\u2028electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies that have been modulated\u2028with low frequencies can remove calcium ions from cell membranes. This\u2028weakens them and makes them more inclined to leak, which explains most\u2028of the other biological effects such as cardiac arrhythmia.\u2028\u00a0\u2028+ -(0935)\u2028\u00a0\u2028The heart muscle beats in response to electrical waves propagating\u2028through it. These are generated by ions moving across its cell\u2028membrane. If they leak, these ion movements are less pronounced and\u2028the heartbeat becomes irregular, which could result in heart failure–\u2028lack of information.\u2028\u00a0\u2028When cells leak into the surrounding matrix, it can cause\u2028inflammation. That which is beginning to show is early dementia. The\u2028brain is separated from the blood by what we call a tight junction\u2028barrier, in which the gaps between the cells are sealed to prevent the\u2028entry of unwanted materials. Cellphone radiation makes this barrier\u2028leak to let in toxic materials that can lead to early dementia.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Allergies, which are also on the increase–\u2028\u00a0\u2028[cut off by Chair]<\/p>\n

Dr Panagopoulos’ intro testimony on the April 29th 2010 \u00a0\u2028<\/strong><\/h3>\n

[the Apr 29 evidence <\/strong>is now posted at he HESA site]\u2028\u00a0\u2028Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos:\u2028Hello. Thanks for inviting me.\u2028\u00a0\u2028I shall try to describe, within a few lines, 10 basic conclusions\u2028from our experimental and theoretical work at the University of Athens\u2028over the last 11 years on the biological effects of mobile telephone\u2028radiation.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Conclusion number one is that GSM radiation between 900 and 1,800\u2028megahertz, from mobile phone handsets, is found to reduce insect\u2028reproduction by up to 60%. The insects were exposed for six minutes\u2028daily during the first five days of their adult lives. Both males and\u2028females were found to be affected.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Second, the reduction of insect reproductive capacity was found to\u2028be due to cell death induction in reproductive cells. In the papers\u2028distributed to the committee members, we can see pictures of eggs from\u2028insects. In the first picture, we see eggs from a non-exposed insect.\u2028In the second picture, we see eggs from an insect exposed to radiation\u2028from a mobile phone handset. We can see the characteristic\u2028fluorescence denoting DNA fragmentation and cell death. You have more\u2028pictures like this.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Third, the effect of short-term exposure is evident at radiational\u2028intensities down to one microwatt per square centimetre. This\u2028radiational intensity is found at a distance of about one metre from a\u2028cellphone or 100 metres from a corresponding base station antenna.\u2028This radiational intensity is 450 times and 900 times lower than the\u2028limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation\u2028Protection, ICNIRP, at 900 and 1,800 megahertz, respectively.\u2028\u00a0\u2028It is possible that for long-term exposure durations of weeks or\u2028months or years, the effect would be evident at even longer distances\u2028or at even lower intensities. For this, a safety factor should be\u2028introduced in the above value, of one microwatt per square centimetre.\u2028By introducing a safety factor of 10, the above value becomes 0.1\u2028microwatts per square centimetre, which is the limit proposed by the\u2028BioInitiative Report.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Fourth, the effect is strongest for intensities higher than 200\u2028microwatts per square centimetre; this is when we have a cellphone\u2028very close to our heads. Within that so-called window, around the\u2028intensity value of 10 microwatts per square centimetre, the effect\u2028becomes even stronger. This intensity value of 10 microwatts per\u2028square centimetre corresponds to a distance of about 20 to 30\u2028centimetres from a mobile phone handset or 20 to 30 metres from a base\u2028station antenna.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Fifth, the effect increases with increasing daily duration of\u2028exposure in terms of short-term exposures of one minute to 21 minutes\u2028daily.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Sixth, the effect is non-thermal. There are no temperature\u2028increases during the exposures.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Seventh, the effect at the cellular level is most likely due to\u2028the irregular gating of ion channels on cell membranes, which is\u2028caused by the electromagnetic fields. This leads to disruption of the\u2028cell’s electrochemical balance and function. This mechanism is a non-\u2028thermal one.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Eighth, although we cannot simply extrapolate the above results\u2028from insects to humans, similar effects on humans cannot be excluded.\u2028On the contrary, they are possible, first because insects are, in\u2028general, much more resistant to radiation than mammals, and second,\u2028because the presented findings are in agreement with the results of\u2028other experimenters who are reporting DNA damage in mammalian cells or\u2028mammalian and human infertility. There are many references for these\u2028findings in papers also distributed to the committee.\u2028\u00a0\u2028+ -(0930)\u2028\u00a0\u2028Ninth, reported observations during the last years regarding the\u2028diminishing of insect populations, especially bees, can be explained\u2028by a decrease in their reproductive capacity, as I described.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Our tenth and last conclusion is that symptoms referred to as\u2028\u201cmicrowave syndrome\u201d, like headaches, sleep disturbances, fatigue,\u2028etc., among people residing around base station antennas, can possibly\u2028be explained by cellular stress induction on brain cells or even cell\u2028death induction on a number of brain cells.\u2028\u00a0\u2028Thank you for your attention.<\/p>\n

News coverage<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\t\t\t