Home Page

Share this:

RSC SC6 Rubber Stamp

sc6-rsc-rubber-stamp


Media Coverage and Reaction


Radio Interviews


 


The Royal Society Expert Panel has not answered the questions posed by Canadians.

Click HERE for C4ST Press Release
French version available HERE

  1. Full disclosure from the Expert Panel Members of all financial conflicts, industry associations and lobby groups.
  2. Why was the following statement removed from the 2009 update to SC6? "Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF and microwave exposure."
  3. Can the RSC state there is no harm from wireless radiation at levels below SC6? RSC talks about “weight of evidence”. What does that mean? In the analysis, be transparent. What studies are included and why? What studies are excluded and why?
  4. The model for evaluating radiation exposure is a 200 lb. male mannequin. What scientific evidence is there that this provides safety for children and fetuses?
  5. SC6 was created in 1979 to protect workers and visitors to federal buildings. What steps have been taken since then to justify expanding this to cell towers and antennae? Smart meters? Wi-Fi? Cell and portable phones? Baby monitors? Game consoles? Tablets? Wireless: laptops, printers, mice, keyboards, speakers? Wireless appliances? Microwave ovens? Personal wireless accessories?
  6. SC6 is based on heating tissue after 6 minutes exposure? How is that relevant to today’s constant exposure?
  7. No one is responsible to monitor any wireless device once it is installed (Wi-Fi router, cell tower) or shipped to market. How can SC6 protect Canadians from the cumulative effect of wireless devices?
  8. The RSC did not follow international scientific research best practices.
    1. Disclose the purpose, objectives, background, assumptions, scope and explicit research questions for the review, prior to conducting the review
    2. List the studies included and excluded [with reasons], evidence tables, grading of study quality to permit meaningful public participation to ensure a “rigorous, transparent” review
    3. Seek public input along each major step in the above process
    4. Publish the review protocol(s), and conduct and report the work according to international best practices
    5. For the weight of evidence, adapt and adopt a framework such as that proposed by the US National Toxicology Program with complete transparency on assumptions, interpretations and decisions
    6. Review the original research publications, not just review articles
    7. Include the criteria for searching for and selecting the relevant reviews
    8. Ensure the panel has the mandate, capability and resources to validate and further update the literature searches;
    9. For the first time, publish a monologue from the SC6 update.

At this time we call upon Health Canada to distance themselves from this industry review of Canada’s wireless safety codes,  and publicly lay out the next steps in the review process they have committed to.

USE THE EMAIL PC ON THE RIGHT TO SEND MINISTER AMBROSE YOUR ENCOURAGMENT TO DO SO!


Health Canada - "Following receipt of the report from the RSC, anticipated in March 2014, Health Canada will consult further with Canadians prior to finalizing the revised Safety Code 6."


Why Did the RSC Panel Ignore the Leading Researchers in World?


Dr. Martin Blank Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Cellular Physics, Columbia University

"...Many potentially harmful effects of EMF exposure, such as the stress response and DNA strand breaks, occur at non-thermal levels. The current standards do not adequately protect the health and welfare of the public, and especially its most vulnerable members, children."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Riina Bray BASc, MSc, MD, FCFP, MHSc.
Medical Director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital

"...Over the past 5 years, I have noticed an increasing number of patients who present with EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity). The precautionary principle needs to be enforced without further delay."

Dr. David Carpenter M.D,
Director, Institute for Health and the Environment; Professor, School of Public Health, University at Albany

"...The central issue is that Safety Code 6 is based entirely on the assumption that there are no adverse health effects of radiofrequency radiation other than at intensities that result in tissue heating. This assumption is not correct and is not justified. ... . ... we have strong evidence that humans are being harmed by excessive radiofrequency exposures, and also that children are more vulnerable than adults."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Devra Davis Ph.D., M.P.H.
Environmental Trust Fund; former Professor, Department of Epidemiology and founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Cancer Institute

"... The proliferation of wireless devices overlooks a critical health issue—non-ionizing microwave radiation, at levels that do not induce measurable changes in temperature, can change and damage the brain and sperm. ... The implications for future health care costs if these [brain cancer] projections are correct are staggering. In the USA the treatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on drug costs."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Lennart Hardell M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

"... Our research group has during the last months published further evidence on the human carcinogenic effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These articles need to be included in your review."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Martha Herbert Ph.D., M.D.
Assistant Professor, Pediatric Neurology. Harvard Medical School

"...The evidence is sufficient to warrant new public exposure standards benchmarked to low intensity (non-thermal) exposure levels now known to be biologically disruptive [includes plausible link with autism], and for public health advocacy of strong, interim precautionary practices."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Olle Johansson Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

"...Electrosensitivity is recognized as a disability in Sweden. People with EHS have varying degrees of disability. The evidence for non-thermal adverse effects on human health is overwhelming and the Precautionary Principle should be immediately reflected in guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposures. Children are at particular risk and preventative measures ensuring minimal EMF exposure should be of the highest priority."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Andrew Michrowski Ph.D.
President, Planetary Association for Clean Energy Inc. (PACE); between 1993 and 1996, headed the study team analyzing electromagnetic fields in Canadian houses for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

"... Safety Code 6 essentially unchanged since 1979...there is a need to develop a regulatory framework that includes all aspects related to the spectrum encompassed under the current Safety code 6, one which is up-to-date and consistent with the emerging introduction of new telephony, devices, and their supporting infrastructures. ..."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Meg (Margaret) Sears Ph.D.

"... Early life exposure to cell phone radiation was associated with behavioral disturbances in two studies of children, ... and more recently with asthma (indicative of immune disturbance)... Furthermore, through epigenetic mechanisms, effects can pass from parent to offspring. Canada is among least protective nations. The RSC Panel had a rare opportunity to bring Canada from the worst in the world, to the forefront of standards for exposure to radiofrequency energy... Indeed, considerable scientific evidence currently exists to justify curtailing and modifying our increasing reliance upon wireless communications, at every opportunity."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Hugh Scully, B.A., M.D., M. Sc., F.R.C.S[C]., F.A.C.S.
Professor of Surgery and Health Policy, University of Toronto; Past-President: Ontario Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Cardiovascular Society; Member, Health Policy Advisory Council, American College of Surgeons

"I am very concerned about the increasing evidence internationally that EMR is creating increasing health problems in our population ... This issue is under active consideration by the Health and Public Policy Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Health Policy and Public Health Committees of the Canadian Medical Association and the Council of Family Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society. There is an abundance of evidence from around the world that EMR can be harmful to health. It is imperative that [Safety] Code 6 be adjusted to protect Canadians, particularly our children."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Stephen Sinatra M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.N., C.N.S.
Board certified cardiologist; Fellow of the American College of Cardiology and former Chief of Cardiology, Director of Cardiac Rehabilitation, Manchester Memorial Hospital, Connecticut

"... We do not know the long-term effects of low-level microwave radiation. The safety of this technology on human health has not been properly tested and I would advise that you follow the precautionary principle [which] implies that we have a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigations have found a plausible risk. That “plausible risk” exists for microwave radiation at very low levels..."

(Click to here to view full submission to RSC Panel)

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health, The UC Berkeley Research Center School of Health, University of Berkeley, Berkley, California

"... the 10 higher-quality studies found a harmful association between cell phone use and tumor risk. ... [they] had no funding from the cellular industry whereas the lower quality studies had at least partial industry funding... ... Currently...Canada and the U.S., completely ignore biologic reactivity... Swisscom AG, a major telecommunications provider in Switzerland ... [acknowledged in their] patent application the cancer risk from exposure to wireless radiation eight years before the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that radiofrequency energy, including cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation, is a "possible carcinogen" to humans, like DDT and lead..."

Mr. Bob McGahey
Acting Director, Research and Information at Canadian Teacher's Federation

The Canadian Teachers Federation (CTF) is a national alliance of provincial and territorial teacher organizations that represent nearly 200,000 elementary and secondary school teachers across Canada.

Recommendations...

  • That Safety Code 6 include a recommendation for prudent use of Wi-Fi whenever possible including the recommendation to limit consistent exposure in schools by turning off wireless access points when not in use.
  • That Safety Code 6 exposure thresholds be based upon thermal and biological effects of exposure to Wi-Fi.
  • That the Expert Panel recommend an education program regarding the relative safety of Wi-Fi exposure and that appropriate resources be developed to educate the public regarding ways to avoid potential exposure risks of Wi-Fi access points and devices.

Chronology of Events re Royal Society Of Canada’s Review of Safety Code 6 (Click each to view details)

May 2013 - Initial letter to President of The Royal Society of Canada introducing C4ST and alerting Dr Grise to the conflicted panel selected to review Safety Code 6

July 2013 - The RSC Expert Panel Chair for the review of SC6 Daniel Krewski resigns after the Canadian Medical Association Journal publishes an article exposing his conflict of interest regarding a $126,000 contract with Industry Canada on how to deal with the public regarding cellular tower and SC6 concerns.

Initial Letter to President of Royal Society of Canada from C4ST regarding concerns around conflicted panel.

Canadian Medical Association Journal Article on Daniel Krewksi conflict of interest

August 2013 - Geoffrey Flynn, Chair, Committee on Expert Panels “In the interim, the RSC will not otherwise comment further on the work of the Expert Panel on Safety Code 6 until the panel’s final report has been completed, peer-reviewed, and submitted to Health Canada.”

RSC response by Geoffrey Flynn, Chair, Committee on Expert Panels to this exposé was to express regrets that Dr. Krewski resigned, not that he did not follow proper disclosure procedures and to try to cast doubt on the reporter’s credibility. C4ST’s understanding of the process is that there is no evaluation or judgment on disclosed conflicts.

October 28, 2013 - After delays, the Public Consultation to the Panel members was finally held, hundreds applied to speak, 35 were selected. 33 for change, 2 for status quo.

The original July 8, 2013 date was deferred due to “ a large outpouring of interest in this event, making it challenging to organize in the current circumstances.”

RSC Protocols for public consultation were released.

https://rsc-src.ca/en/expert-panels/protocols-for-public-consultations

Despite assurances “that your invitation will remain valid for the meeting”, several dozen Canadians were unable to speak to the panel who wished to do so. 3 of the 8 panel members were not in attendance at the public consultation. Due to technical difficulties, many of the presentations were not broadcast. At least one panel member offered to re-present her information, but her offer was not accepted

Electrosensitive individuals either were not able to present in the room since the Wi-Fi was not turned off. The ones that could presented under considerable duress.

The week of Oct. 28th, 2013, two conflicted panel members Dr. Foster and Dr. Moulder publish a review paper that demonstrates their pre-formed opinions continue, leading to continued questions about their objectivity.

Moulder is one of the panel members who has direct financial ties to industry. Under oath, he has admitted to receiving payments totaling “several hundred thousand dollars” testifying on behalf of industry in claims of damages from individuals.

That same week Foster also conducts a seminar explaining how WiFi and Smart meters can only have thermal effects on the human body.

November 8th, 2013 - C4ST submitted our nomination for the peer review process

The week of Jan. 13th, our nominee was accepted with a notice that:

On Jan. 31, 2014 a draft of the Expert Panel report would be sent to reviewers

On Feb. 14, 2014 the reviewers’ reports are due (we estimate the document to be approx. 200 pages)

November 8th, 2013 - C4ST sends an introduction letter to the new panel chair, Dr. Demers, alerting him to the conflicted panel he has inherited.

December 3rd, 2013 - C4ST sends intro letter to new Expert Panel Chair, Dr. Layzell and Dr. Demers expressing “reasonable apprehension of bias” in the panel makeup, as well as recent developments in Toronto where the Board of Health upheld their Prudent Avoidance Policy (100 times more restrictive than SC6 limits)

January 14th, 2014 - C4ST nominee for Peer Review was accepted and is given 2 weeks’ notice to be prepared to review the RSC 200 page draft report with a 2 week deadline for comments.

January 23rd, 2014 - Dr. Layzell’s - Expert Panel Secretary responded that he had “reviewed the process that was used to assemble this panel….I continue to stand behind the panel’s membership as being both balanced and credible.”

Your Language:
English French Spanish

Watch the Press Conference

RSC Review of
Saftey Code 6


(click to open)

sc6-report

The RSC Panel Was
Tasked with Five Key Questions

(click to view)

Send A Letter - RSC SC6 Rubber Stamp

Health Canada has committed to: “Consult further with Canadians prior to finalizing the revised Safety Code 6.” Health Minister Ambrose is building a track record of improving transparency within Health Canada. This is a tremendous opportunity for her to direct that focus on the process used to update Safety Code 6. Use the unanswered questions from the left to send a mail of encouragement to Health Minister Ambrose.


Select Recipients

drag to expand

In order to use this tool to submit messages to the officials responsible for this tower, you must agree to become a member of Canadians For Safe Technology. In doing so, we will be able to keep you updated by e-mail on breaking news and calls to action as they occur. At any time, you will have the option of removing yourself from our distribution list.

Details and Events
Leading up to the
Review of Safety Code 6


Scientists speak out against the RSC's report reviewing Safety Code 6

Scientists Speak Out

RSC's report on Safety Code 6 review is released... just a rubber stamp

sc6-rsc-rubber-stamp-new

Learn more about Safety Code 6 and what it means to Canadians

Safety Code 6

See the conflicts present on the RSC Panel
Send your thoughts to the politicians and officials involved

conflicted4

Full Details of Oct 28th incl Media Coverage

Media Coverage

Presentations to The Royal Society of Canada on the Review of Safety Code 6

RSC Public Consultation