Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/c4st/public_html/wp-content/plugins/popupbuilder-pdf/com/classes/PdfPopup.php on line 102

Sign the Appeal to Suspend the 5G Rollout

Sign the Appeal to Suspend the 5G Rollout


May 14, 2020

If recent events have shown us anything, it is that our health is what matters most, late responses to early warnings of potential harm are costly… and we need the Internet!

The telecommunications industry is rushing to deploy 5G across Canada, with no prior health and environmental impact assessment, without fully understanding the economic consequences, and without informed consent.

Full 5G rollout will require the installation of hundreds of thousands1 of new antennas throughout the country on cell towers, hydro poles, lamp posts, buildings and other structures, often within a few metres of where we live and work.

Canadians are largely unaware of the risks of chronic exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by cell tower antennas, small cell antennas, cellphones2, cordless phones, and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices such as tablets, laptops, baby monitors, wireless printers/keyboards/mice, gaming consoles, virtual reality headsets, wearables, “smart” appliances, and utility meters.

RF radiation is scientifically demonstrated to cause or contribute to numerous health effects, including cancers, sperm damage, reproductive harms, learning and memory deficits, and neurodegenerative, cellular and genetic damage.

We rely on the government to ensure our safety. To date, Health Canada and other Ministries have let us down.

We urge Canadians to appeal to the Government of Canada to “look before we leap,” to immediately suspend any further 5G rollout, and to press for a safer, more cost-effective and secure alternative — namely fibre optic and wired connections to every home and business.

This Appeal was jointly developed by the following Canadian organizations:


  1. All Canadians need safe, fast, reliable, energy-efficient, secure and affordable Internet access.
  1. Connectivity, with wires and in particular fibre optic cable (fibre), is the best means to fulfill this need. Fibre does not emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation that is harmful; fibre is at least 100 times faster, 3 more reliable, secure and resilient 4 and is far more protective of privacy5,6 than wireless connectivity;7
  2. Wireless technologies emit harmful RF radiation, have a much larger carbon footprint than wired technologies, rely on rare minerals,8 and the Institute of Electrical ad Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published that, “Wireless technologies will continue to consume at least 10 times more power than wired technologies”;9
  3. The economic burden of wireless technologies has never been evaluated.10 While the benefits have been widely discussed, the actual costs – increasing healthcare costs,11 lost productivity related to adverse health effects from RF radiation exposure, costs engendered by security12 and privacy breaches13, environmental damage,14,15 and the foreseeable impacts to safety and property from the degradation of weather forecast accuracy16 – have never been assessed to determine if they outweigh the benefits.17
  1. Canadians expect their government to protect their health and the environment.
  1. There has been no testing to ensure that 5G technology is safe for humans and the environment;18,19
  2. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6,20 the exposure guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation, does not protect Canadians’ health,21,22,23,24 nor does it address environmental safety. Canada’s guidelines lag behind those of many other countries.25 Health Canada’s process to update Safety Code 6 (in 2015) was deeply flawed,26,27 and exposure limits are based on the outdated premise that RF causes harm only at exposure levels that produce excessive heat.28,29,30 Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications describe biological effects and harms with exposures far below Canada’s limits, in humans, plants, laboratory animals and wildlife such as birds and pollinators;31,32,33,34
  3. Wireless transmitters emit RF radiation, which is scientifically demonstrated to cause or contribute to numerous health effects including cancers,35,36 sperm damage,37 reproductive harms,38 learning and memory deficits,39 neurodegenerative, cellular and genetic damage.40,41,42 A growing number of Canadians also experience immediate and debilitating (but preventable) health problems such as headaches, irregular heartbeats, cognitive difficulties and insomnia, resulting in poor quality of life.43 All Canadians are susceptible to developing such health issues, unless their ever-increasing exposure to RF radiation is curtailed;
  4. Scientists report environmental harms to birds,44,45 pollinators,46 trees47 and other species,48,49 however, there are no environmental guidelines for RF radiation;50
  5. The default in Canada is for most, if not all, of our wireless devices and antennas to be “always on,” i.e., transmitting;
  6. In 2015, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) published a report entitled Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians.51 Its 12 recommendations [click here to see those recommendations] addressed several of the issues mentioned above, and included a national awareness campaign about the harmful effects of wireless technologies and how to reduce risks. The report received all-party support and was tabled by the Conservative (2015) and Liberal (2016) majority governments. In 2010, a similar report was published.52 None of the recommendations have been implemented.53,54
  1. Canadians expect and deserve a transparent public consultation process to choose telecommunications infrastructure.
  1. There are no requirements for Canadians to be consulted55 when cell antennas are added to existing structures (towers, buildings, lamp posts or hydro poles close to our homes); and municipalities do not have to be notified unless the municipality owns the structure. As for new towers, the public and the municipality must be consulted; however, the public consultation is carried out by the telecommunication company and is inadequate. Telecommunication companies, regarding health matters, say they comply with Safety Code 6. Further, if a municipality is opposed to the installation of a cell tower, the federal government can legally override that refusal.56 Recently, the 2020 report of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel recommends giving the federal government even greater control over where antennas are placed in Canada;57

We, the citizens and residents of Canada, urgently appeal to the Government of Canada to:

  1. Ensure all Canadians can have Internet access that is safe, fast, reliable, resilient, secure, affordable and, in the long-term, the most environmentally and economically sound for Canada:
  1. Require all telecommunications providers to provide fibre to the premises (FTTP) that can connect to wireline equipment in the premises, and to not replace existing wired telephone and Internet services with wireless;
  2. Invest in wired technologies, instead of wireless and satellite options, to expand high-speed Internet in communities underserved by the private sector across Canada;
  3. Complete an economic analysis, by the end of 2021, of the incremental revenue from 5G versus the total potential economic burden. This would include, but not be limited to: increased healthcare costs; lost productivity arising from adverse health effects; security and privacy breaches; damage to the environment; and risks to safety and property including those resulting from degraded weather forecast accuracy;
  4. Immediately suspend the installation of new antennas, especially “small cell” antennas near homes, hospitals, schools, public buildings and sensitive wildlife habitats, until safety guidelines have been appropriately revised and implemented, and until the total economic implications are understood;
  5. Immediately suspend the auctioning and transferring of all spectrum licences, until safety guidelines have been appropriately revised and implemented, and until the total economic implications are understood;
  1. Protect Canadians’ health and the environment before further rollout of wireless infrastructure, including 5G:
  1. Implement the 12 recommendations in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) 2015 report Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians; [click here to see those recommendations]
  2. Revise Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. A truly independent panel with appropriate expertise must systematically review the scientific evidence of the effects of RF radiation. This requires rigorous scientific methods, transparency, full public consultation from initial scoping throughout the process, and health-protective precautionary interpretation of findings;
  3. Establish binding guidelines to protect wildlife and the environment from RF radiation using a similar process;
  4. Building on the regulation of chemicals, shift the burden of proof to the telecommunications and wireless technology industries, and require that they prove that their products are not harmful to Canadians or the environment;
  5. Ensure Canadians’ indoor and outdoor exposure to RF radiation from wireless technologies is kept as low as possible (ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable”) through proper regulation, monitoring, enforcement and ongoing public education and technical device management. One of many examples would be to require that all wireless devices and antennas not transmit (i.e., not emit radiation) when not in use.
  1. Provide a meaningful, transparent process for municipalities and their citizens to have a decisive say over the installation of cellular network antennas.
  1. Provide a meaningful, transparent process for municipalities and their citizens to have a decisive say over whether and where cellular network antennas are installed, on either towers or non-tower structures (e.g., lamp posts, hydro poles and buildings). Informed public participatory consultation and local decision-making regarding current and future antenna siting would replace the broad powers currently resting with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED).


  1. There are currently 764,581 transmitters in Canada according to the Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Spectrum Management System database (as of April 3, 2020). 5G network infrastructures will require a much greater cell density. http://sms-sgs.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sms-sgs-prod.nsf/eng/h_00010.htmlhttps://www.itworldcanada.com/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g/416498
  2. The Secret Inside Your Cellphone (Wendy Mesley, CBC Marketplace). https://youtu.be/Wm69ik_Qdb8
  3. Noam, E. (2011). Let them eat cellphones: why mobile wireless is no solution for broadband. In Journal of Information Policy, Vol. 1 (2011), pp. 470-485 (pp. 470.485). Penn State University Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/jinfopoli.1.2011.0470.pdf
  4. Traditional copper wired phones work during a power outage hence are more reliable. Wireless cell networks are constantly upgraded whereas cable or fibre is laid once.
  5. Warzel, Charlie, & Thompson, Stuart A. (2019, December 19). Twelve Million Americans Were Tracked Through Their Phones. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/opinion/tracking-phone-data.html
  6. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.  New York: Public Affairs. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=56791
  7. Schoechle, Timothy. (2018). Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks. National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy Washington, DC, 156. https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReInventing-Wires-1-25-18.pdf
  8. Canada, Natural Resources. (2020). “Canada and U.S. Finalize Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration.” https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-and-u-s-finalize-joint-action-plan-on-critical-minerals-collaboration-829031955.html
  9. Baliga, J., Ayre, R., Hinton, K., and Tucker R. (2011).“Energy Consumption in Wired and Wireless Access Networks.” IEEE Communications Magazine 49, no. 6: 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.5783987
  10. Patel, N. (2019, May 23). Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race? Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637213/5g-race-us-leadership-china-fcc-lte
  11. Women’s College Hospital, Toronto. (31 May2019). Impacts of Wireless Technology on Health: A symposium for Ontario’s medical community – Video of symposium, 31 May 2019. https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/programs-and-services/environmental-health-clinic/June-2019-Conference-Videos
  12. Schneier, B. (2019, September 25). Essays: Every Part of the Supply Chain Can Be Attacked – Schneier on Security. Retrieved from https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/09/every_part_of_the_su.html
  13. The Threat Lab. (2019, June 26). The History of Cellular Network Security Doesn’t Bode Well for 5G. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/history-cellular-network-security-doesnt-bode-well-5g
  14. ITU. (2019). The growing challenge of e-waste. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/e-waste.aspx
  15. Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 448.463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239
  16. Samenow, J. (2019, May 23). Head of NOAA says 5G deployment could set weather forecasts back 40 years. The wireless industry denies it. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/23/head-noaa-says-g-deployment-could-set-weather-forecasts-back-years-wireless-industry-denies-it/
  17. Zarrett, David. (2020, February 19). Threats to security, health, public infrastructure.and other potential costs of Canada’s 5G rollout. Macleans. Retrieved from https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/threats-to-security-health-public-infrastructure-and-other-potential-costs-of-canadas-5g-rollout/
  18. 5G Appeal of International Scientists. 5G Appeal, September 2017. http://www.5gappeal.eu/
  19. United States Senator Richard Blumenthal. (2019, February 7). Press release: At Senate Commerce Hearing, Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology’s Potential Health Risk. Retrieved from https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks
  20. Health Canada, (2015). Limits of human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 KHz to 300 GHz. Safety Code 6 (2015). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/limits-human-exposure-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-energy-range-3-300.html
  21. Pall, M. L. (2015). Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30(2), 99.116. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2015-0001
  22. Declaration: Doctors Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure. (2014, September 28). Retrieved from https://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada-english.pdf
  23. Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure. (2014, July 9). Retrieved from https://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/scientific-declaration-to-health-canada-english.pdf
  24. Canadians for Safe Technology. (2014). Relevant scientific studies (140) omitted by Health Canada in its scientific review of draft Safety Code 6 (2014), Canada’s safety guidelines for safe exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation. Retrieved from https://c4st.org/c4st-reviews-ignored-studies/
  25. Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. [Figure 3: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0360132319305347-gr3_lrg.jpg] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324
  26. Webster, P. C. (2014). Federal Wi-Fi safety report is deeply flawed, say experts. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal de l’Association Médicale Canadienne, 186(9), E300. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4785 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050007/
  27. Huh, N. Y. (2014, April 15). Canadian scientists urge more research into safety of wireless technology, saying recent report downgrades cancer risk. National Post. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/health/canadian-scientists-urge-more-research-into-safety-of-wireless-technology-saying-recent-report-downgrades-cancer-risk
  28. Webster, P. C. (2015). Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(9), 639.640. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5061 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4467923/
  29. Cook, H. J., Steneck, N. H., Vander, A. J., & Kane, G. L. (1980). Early research on the biological effects of microwave radiation: 1940-1960. Annals of Science, 37, 323.351. https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Cook_1980_early_research.pdf
  30. Health Canada. (2015). Limits of human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 KHz to 300 GHz. Safety Code 6 (2015), 24. [See Section 2. MAXIMUM EXPOSURE LIMITS, paragraph 2 – first sentence.] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-risks-safety/limits-human-exposure-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-energy-range-3-300.html
  31. Russell, C. L. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484.495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016
  32. Kelly, E., Blank, M., Lai, H., Moskowitz, J., & Havas, M. (2015). International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. Eur. J. Oncol., 20(3/4), 180–182. https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology/article/view/4971/3658.
    Also see: United Nations (U.N.) Environment Programme Urged to Protect Nature and Humankind from Electromagnetic Fields (EMF). 4G/5G antenna densification is escalating health risks – a global crisis. https://emfscientist.org/.
    Also see: BioInitiative 2012 Report. (2012). A rationale for biologically based exposure standards for low-intensity electromagnetic radiation. Sections 5-11,14,15,20. C. Sage, and D.O. Carpenter (Eds) BioInitiative Working Group. https://bioinitiative.org/
  33. Lázaro, A., Chroni, A., Tscheulin, T., Devalez, J., Matsoukas, C., and Petanidou, T. “Electromagnetic Radiation of Mobile Telecommunication Antennas Affects the Abundance and Composition of Wild Pollinators.” Journal of Insect Conservation 20, no. 2 (April 26, 2016): 315.24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9868-8
  34. Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223
  35. Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental Research, 167, 673.683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043
  36. Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2018). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606
  37. Houston, B. J., Nixon, B., King, B. V., De Iuliis, G. N., & Aitken, R. J. (2016). The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), 152(6), R263.R276. https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-16-0126
  38. Magras, I. N., & Xenos, T. D. (1997). RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 18(6), 455.461. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9261543/
  39. Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X.-B., & Taylor, H. S. (2012). Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Scientific Reports, 2, 312. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00312
  40. Panagopoulos, D. J. (2019). Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 781, 53.62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2019.03.003
  41. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2018). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP Technical Report 595, 384. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/ntp-temp/tr595_508.pdf
  42. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Sciences. (2018). Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/n mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 mHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP Technical Report 596, 260. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf
  43. Clegg, F. M., Sears, M., Friesen, M., Scarato, T., Metzinger, R., Russell, C., Stadtner, A., Miller, A. B. (2020). Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, 176, 106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324
  44. Engels, S., Schneider, N.-L., Lefeldt, N., Hein, C. M., Zapka, M., Michalik, A., … Mouritsen, H. (2014). Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature, 509(7500), 353.356. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13290
  45. Schwarze, S., Schneider, N.-L., Reichl, T., Dreyer, D., Lefeldt, N., Engels, S., … Mouritsen, H. (2016). Weak Broadband Electromagnetic Fields are More Disruptive to Magnetic Compass Orientation in a Night-Migratory Songbird (Erithacus rubecula) than Strong Narrow-Band Fields. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00055
  46. Expert Committee. Ministry of Environment and Forest. India. (2011). Report on possible impacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees. 88 pages. Indian Environmental Portal. Retrieved from http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/341385/report-on-possible-impacts-of-communication-towers-on-wildlife-including-birds-and-bees/
  47. Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. The Science of the Total Environment, 572, 554.569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133
  48. Cucurachi, S., Tamis, W. L. M., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Bolte, J. F. B., & de Snoo, G. R. (2013). A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116.140. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23261519/
  49. Russell, C. L. (2018). 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research, 165, 484.495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016
  50. Government of Canada. (2017). Healthy Environment, Healthy Canadians, Healthy Economy: Strengthening the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ENVI/Reports/RP9037962/envirp08/envirp08-e.pdf
  51. Government of Canada. (2015). Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the health of Canadians. Report of the Standing Committee on Health (HESA), Ben Lobb, Chair., 13th Report, 31pp. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/HESA/report-13/
  52. Government of Canada, (2010). An examination of the potential health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation / Joy Smith, MP, Chair. : XC62-403/1-1-03E-PDF – Government of Canada Publications – Canada.ca. http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/385118/publication.html
  53. Government of Canada. (2016, October 6). Government Response – 8512-421-78 – House of Commons of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/report-2/response-8512-421-78
  54. Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) Reply to Minister Philpott’s response to HESA 2015 Report on Safety (2017, February 16). https://c4st.org/minister-health-response-hesa-recommendations/
  55. Government of Canada, Industry Canada. (2014, June 26). DGSO-002-14 . Decision on Amendments to Industry Canada’s Antenna Tower Siting Procedures [Consultation Reports]. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10840.html
  56. Government of Canada, Industry Canada. (2014). Guide to Assist Land-use Authorities in Developing Antenna System Siting Protocols. Spectrum Management and Telecommunications, (2), 10. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10860.html. Also see: Government of Canada, Industry Canada. (2014). CPC-2-0-03 — Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html#sec4.1.
  57. Yale, J. et al. (2020). Final Report. Canada’s Communication Future: Time to Act (p. 235). Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/110.nsf/vwapj/BTLR_Eng-V3.pdf/$file/BTLR_Eng-V3.pdf

Resources & Info

C4ST CEO, Frank Clegg on 5G Appeal

5G Winnipeg Awareness Margaret Friesen

Media Information

Latest News

Other Ways to Support the Appeal

Become a Supporting Organization of the Appeal

Supporting Canadian Organizations at Launch

  • 5G Winnipeg Awareness [MB]
  • Albertans for Safe Technology [AB]
  • CALM – Call to Action to Limit Microcells [Canada-wide]
  • Campagne Stoppons la 5G – Vivons sans danG / Let’s Stop 5G – Let’s Live Safely campaign [QC]
  • Canadiens pour une technologie sécuritaire / Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST)
  • Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST)
  • Youth Riding Reps [ON]
  • Citoyens contre la prolifération des antennes de téléphonie mobile dans les Cantons de l’Est [QC]
  • Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE) [BC]
  • Coalition to Stop Smart Meters [BC]
  • Electrosensitive Society [Canada-wide]
  • Environmental Health Association of Manitoba [MB]
  • EPIC – Electromagnetic Pollution Illnesses Canada Foundation
  • Kingstonians for Safe Technology [ON]
  • Let’s Connect Salt Spring [BC]
  • Parents for Safe Schools [BC]
  • Prevent Cancer Now (PCN) [Canada-wide]
  • Rassemblement ÉlectroSensibilité Québec (RESQ) [QC]
  • Stop 5G Magog-Sherbrooke [QC]
  • Stop 5G Montréal [QC]
  • Stop 5G Rimouski [QC]
  • Stop 5G Sutton [QC]
  • Stop 5G Val-David [QC]
  • Transition Wolfville Area [NS]
  • WEEP – The Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution

This list is from page 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) 2015 report Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians [https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/412/HESA/Reports/RP8041315/hesarp13/hesarp13-e.pdf]


Recommendation 1:
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the health departments of the provinces and territories, examine existing cancer data collection methods to improve the collection of information relating to wireless device use and cancer.

Recommendation 2:
That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.

Recommendation 3:
That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.

Recommendation 4:
That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.

Recommendation 5:
That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Recommendation 6:
That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside experts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.

Recommendation 7:
That the Government of Canada establish a system for Canadians to report potential adverse reactions to radiofrequency fields.

Recommendation 8:
That an independent scientific body recognized by Health Canada examine whether measures taken and guidelines provided in other countries, such as France and Israel, to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environment, to radiofrequencies should be adopted in Canada.

Recommendation 9:
That the Government of Canada develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home to ensure that Canadian families and children are reducing risks related to radiofrequency exposure.

Recommendation 10:
That Health Canada conduct a comprehensive review of all existing literature relating to radiofrequency fields and carcinogenicity based on international best practices.

Recommendation 11:
That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into the link between radiofrequency fields and potential health effects such as cancer, genetic damage, infertility, impairment to development and behaviour, harmful effects to eyes and on the brain, cardiovascular, biological and biochemical effects.

Recommendation 12:
That the Government of Canada and manufacturers consider policy measures regarding the marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, in order to ensure they are aware of the health risks and how they can be avoided.