Why care…

…about the effects of wireless radiation on humans?

Health Effects (long-term)

Hundreds of high-quality peer-reviewed studies show that long-term exposure to RF radiation affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines, including Canada’s.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7} Children are particularly vulnerable.

The adverse health effects include, among others: 

• damage to DNA and genes; 
• increased cancer risk, oxidative stress; 
• reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin; 
• neurotoxicity in humans and animals; 
• serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function; 
• effects on memory, learning, attention, behaviour, sleep disruption. 

Experts urgently call for the classification of RFR to be a known human carcinogen

• Cancer remains the leading cause of death in Canada. 
• Nearly 1 in 2 Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime. 1 in 4 will die from cancer.
• An estimated 1,000 children (aged 0-14 years) are diagnosed each year

— According to the report “Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2020”⁸

What is Safety Code 6?

Health Canada’s exposure guidelines for radiation from devices and antennas are known as Safety Code 6 – Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Industry Canada requires manufacturers of wireless devices (cellphones, 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) and the corresponding infrastructure, to meet Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits. 

• Safety Code 6 was originally created in the 1970’s for the protection of federal employees and visitors to federal buildings. 
• It has been expanded to include emissions from Wi-Fi, smart phones, smart meters and cell phone towers. 
• It has not had any major revisions in the last 40 years. 
• Many institutions such as school boards have adopted Safety Code 6 although they are legally able to set safer standards. 
• Safety levels for commonly used devices are based solely on temperature changes in tissues. For example, exposures such as from cell towers are considered safe if the estimated temperature in a cube of tissue does not increase by more than a certain rise in temperature over a 6-minute exposure period.¹³ The science supporting this theory is almost 100 years old.¹⁴
• Levels are considered to be safe for 24/7 exposures, even for infants and small children. 
• None of the evidence in hundreds of high-quality, peer-reviewed, published studies demonstrating adverse effects under “nonthermal” conditions is incorporated into Safety Code 6 guidelines. 
• Some industry liability insurance providers do not offer coverage against adverse health effects from radiation emitted by wireless technologies, and insurance authorities deem potential liability as “high.”¹⁵

Health Canada admits studies show harm at levels below Safety Code 6

Mr. Andrew Adams, Director General, Health Canada, in testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee, admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6.¹⁶

Safety Code 6 sets out Health Canada’s wireless guidelines for recommended human exposure limits to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (energy), the kind of radiation given off by various electronic devices such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, as well as by broadcast and cell phone towers.

Canada’s Safety Code 6 is among the worst guidelines in the world.

• China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits for emissions such as from cell towers that are 50 times safer than Canada.¹⁷
• 40% of the world’s population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada. 
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, regulator for emission levels from devices, does not routinely monitor (measure) for the multi-hour, multi-day exposures of today’s environment; nor the cumulative effects from multiple devices. 
• Manufacturers have safety warnings that are buried in the fine print of user manuals of cell phones and tablets.¹⁸

Canada has fallen behind countries such as France, Taiwan and Belgium in protecting Canadians from the unsafe use of wireless devices.

January 29, 2015, France passed the following articles into law:¹⁹

• Wi-Fi is banned in nurseries for children under the age of 3;
• Wi-Fi in primary schools (under age 11) is enabled only when used for lessons.
• Signage is required to inform the public when Wi-Fi is offered in a public place.
• At the point of sale of mobile phones, the SAR value must be clearly shown.
• In the future, all mobile phone advertisements must include recommendations on how users can reduce RF radiation exposure to the head such as the use of headsets.
• Data on local EMF exposure levels shall be made more easily accessible to the general public, among others, through country-wide transmitter maps.

November 15, 2019, France extended these regulations to include all other wireless devices:²⁰

• The SAR (measure used for cell phone radiation exposure) for all equipment generating radiofrequency radiation used in close proximity to the body must be displayed to better inform the public.
• This order includes recommendations for teens and pregnant women to keep radio equipment away from their abdomens.

February 15, 2015. Taiwanese lawmakers passed new legislation in which:²¹ 

• Parents face fines if they allow children under the age of two to use tablets and smartphones; 
• Youth under 18 years of age are allowed devices for a ‘reasonable length of time’. 

March, 2014. It is illegal to market cell phones to children less than seven years of age in Belgium.²²

Safety Code 6 does not provide the necessary protection for children and pregnant women.

• Modeling indicates that children absorb substantially higher RFR doses from cell phones, in deeper brain structures, than do adults.²³
• Research has also found proportionately higher doses to tissues in children compared with adults, from wireless laptops and utility meters.^24,25
• Research has linked exposure during pregnancy to adverse effects. The authors of a case-control study published in 2015 stated, “use of mobile phones can be related to early spontaneous abortions”.²⁶
• Maternal mobile phone use during the first trimester of pregnancy may contribute to slowing or halting of embryonic development²⁷, possibly due to effects on membrane receptors in human amniotic cells.²⁸
• A 2019 study of over 55,000 pregnant women and infants in four countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Korea) linked maternal cell phone use during pregnancy with shorter pregnancy duration and increased risk for preterm birth.²⁹

Health Canada ignores the scientific evidence and how we use our devices

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.^30,31,32,33 

CBC Marketplace “The Secret Inside your Cell Phone”³⁴ reports that:

• 81% of Canadians have not seen the warning message in their phone or manual. 
• 67% of Canadians say they carry their phones in their pocket or directly against their body. 
• All 3 phones tested had emissions 3-4 times above Health Canada guidelines. 

Health Canada aligns Safety Code 6 with the US Federal Communications Commission which has been ordered by a US Federal court to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation.^35,36