Donate
  • Wireless 5G
    • 5G Appeal
    • Guide to Stopping Wireless 5G
    • White Paper – Electromagnetic Radiation and CEPA
    • Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks
  • About C4ST
    • Riding Representatives
    • Mission & Goals
    • Join C4ST
    • Blog
  • Learn More
    • 5G – The Facts
    • How to Stop a Cell Tower in Canada
    • 5G – Localized Limits
      • 5G Petition & Government Responses
      • Health Canada Analysis 6 to 300 GHz
    • How Can You Reduce Your Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
    • Canadian Environmental Protection Act submissions 2016
      • C4ST 2016 CEPA Brief
      • PCN CEPA Brief
      • EHAMB CEPA 2016 Brief
      • Magda Havas CEPA 2016 Brief
      • Margaret Friesen CEPA 2016 Brief
    • Letter to Minister of Health Patty Hajdu
    • C4ST Submission to the Industry, Science and Economic Development (ISED) public consultation on 5G
    • CBC Investigation
    • Minister of Health Response to HESA Recommendations
    • HESA 2015 Recommendations
    • Safety Code 6
    • Health Canada
    • Wireless Technology Symposium
    • Active WiFi Situations
    • Auditor General Petition (See Below for Full Petitions)
    • Auditor General EP Full petitions: Auditor General Environmental Petitions and Government of Canada Replies Regarding Radiofrequency/microwave Radiation Related to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6
  • Research
    • Medical Research
    • Scientific Research
    • Appeals & Research
  • News
    • Canadian News
    • International News
    • Press Releases
    • Archive
  • Contact Us
  • Wireless 5G
    • 5G Appeal
    • Guide to Stopping Wireless 5G
    • White Paper – Electromagnetic Radiation and CEPA
    • Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks
  • About C4ST
    • Riding Representatives
    • Mission & Goals
    • Join C4ST
    • Blog
  • Learn More
    • 5G – The Facts
    • How to Stop a Cell Tower in Canada
    • 5G – Localized Limits
      • 5G Petition & Government Responses
      • Health Canada Analysis 6 to 300 GHz
    • How Can You Reduce Your Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
    • Canadian Environmental Protection Act submissions 2016
      • C4ST 2016 CEPA Brief
      • PCN CEPA Brief
      • EHAMB CEPA 2016 Brief
      • Magda Havas CEPA 2016 Brief
      • Margaret Friesen CEPA 2016 Brief
    • Letter to Minister of Health Patty Hajdu
    • C4ST Submission to the Industry, Science and Economic Development (ISED) public consultation on 5G
    • CBC Investigation
    • Minister of Health Response to HESA Recommendations
    • HESA 2015 Recommendations
    • Safety Code 6
    • Health Canada
    • Wireless Technology Symposium
    • Active WiFi Situations
    • Auditor General Petition (See Below for Full Petitions)
    • Auditor General EP Full petitions: Auditor General Environmental Petitions and Government of Canada Replies Regarding Radiofrequency/microwave Radiation Related to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6
  • Research
    • Medical Research
    • Scientific Research
    • Appeals & Research
  • News
    • Canadian News
    • International News
    • Press Releases
    • Archive
  • Contact Us

How will Health Canada deal with RSC Review and Canadians?

  • 0 Comments
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Canada’s Royal Society (equivalent to the US’ National Academies of Science) has just completed an evaluation of the county’s safety standards for wireless devices like Wi-Fi and cellphones. The review, done at the behest of Health Canada, concludes that the existing standards appear sufficient, and there’s no clear evidence of any risks posed by lower exposure. But the repport suggests that the government has done a poor job of explaining why it’s adopted the standards it has.

Parents who have called for Wi-Fi bans in schools will no doubt be disappointed, as will those who claim to be sensitive to wireless signals. The report noted that studies have indicated that, whatever’s bothering these people, it’s unlikely to be Wi-Fi or cell phones.

The report also points out that existing standards are based on two types of risk. Sufficiently strong electromagnetic fields can lead to shocks or can activate nerves, leading to a tingling sensation. Other types of electromagnetic radiation used to send signals wirelessly can also cause a general heating of water, and thus biological tissue.

But the safety standards already handle these; even the highest levels of permissible exposure cause a warming “equivalent to the thermal load from very slight physical activity.” The panel also looked for any other “established adverse health effects,” defined as “observed consistently in several studies with strong methodology.” It didn’t find any. It did find a variety of suggestive studies, including some focused on cancer, but the results have never been consistent. It also looked for cellular responses to this form of radiation, but again the researchers came up empty: “In general, these reported low-level effects are often not consistent across similar studies and have no clear implications with respect to human health.”

The report advises Health Canada to continue to monitor the latest papers, but in the end, the existing guidelines are likely to be sufficient.

As for people who claim that they’re distinctively sensitive to exposures of this sort, “extensive research has failed to clearly link a person’s symptoms with actual exposure to RF (radiofrequency) energy.” Health Canada should study these individuals, the report suggests, to find out what is actually causing their symptoms.

The authors of the report also urge Health Canada to engage in a more aggressive public relations campaign, explaining the scientific basis for its safety standards to the public, and providing them with advice on how to limit exposure if they’re still not convinced.

Unfortunately, this isn’t likely to work. The science behind the standards has been unchanged for years and isn’t hard to find. Yet a variety of attempts have been made to block Wi-Fi use in Canada, despite the lack of evidence to support them. That’s because (ironically) evidence indicates that we base many risk evaluations on emotional reactions and cultural affinities rather evidence. And, if someone has already become convinced that cell phones are dangerous, they’ll simply interpret Health Canada’s advice on limiting exposure as evidence that they’re correct.

Convincing the public that the safety standards are, well, safe, will require a carefully planned and orchestrated campaign. And it’s not at all clear whether that would be a good use of Health Canada’s resources.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
 
Recent Posts
  • Clegg Safety Challenge
  • Ford Government power grab from Municipalities inside Broadband Bill 257 without economic and health analysis.
  • We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe
  • Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk?
  • Final Report on Evolving 5G Technology
Keep your family safe! Click here to see how.
Tweets by @_C4ST

Health Canada, Critics Face Off Over Wireless Radiation Limits

Swiss Building Provides Refuge for the Hypersensitive

Scroll
Action Kits
  • Cell Towers
  • Wi-Fi in Schools
  • Smart Meters (coming soon)
  • Electrosensitivity (coming soon)
  • Stay Safe with Wireless Safety Tips
Recent Posts
  • Clegg Safety Challenge
  • Ford Government power grab from Municipalities inside Broadband Bill 257 without economic and health analysis.
  • We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe
  • Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk?
  • Final Report on Evolving 5G Technology
Facebook
Visit Us on Facebook and help us reach 1,000,000 Canadians
© 2012- Canadians 4 Safe Technology (C4ST)

  • English