Home Page

Share this:

Scientists Speak Out

scientists-speak-out

[Click here for our press release]
[Cliquez ici pour le communiqué de presse en français]


Media Coverage



Royal Society Review Scientists Break Their Silence

On April 1st, 2014 the Royal Society of Canada submitted its Review of Safety Code 6: Health Canada's Safety Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields. Despite selecting highly conflicted academics to its review panel, and having to replace three of them after a conflict of interest was exposed in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the panel went ahead with its report. Predictably it was a rubber stamp that Canada's radiation safety limits should not be changed.

Despite Geoffrey Flynn, Secretary of Expert Panels confirming in writing that the conflicts present would be disclosed with the review, they were not.

“With respect to the points of view and potential conflicts of interest of the panel members, these are largely known to us, were carefully reviewed at the first meeting of the panel, and will be published with the panel report.” (Click here to read full letter)

Now two of the Report's official peer reviewers have stepped forward to say something is amiss. It has been revealed that the Royal Society concluded that its "survey of the evidence" supports the notion that wireless radiation is safe, only because the panel did not consider the science that shows it is not.

The two reviewers give us a rare inside look at the true controversy behind the Royal Society's "expert" review panel. Definitive evidence that cell towers, cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi and cordless phones can cause harm to humans has been swept aside at the highest level of scientific oversight in Canada.

The two scientists breaking their silence are eminent scholars in the fields of human cellular biology, and the environmental causes of Cancer in our society.

Miller31

Dr. Anthony B. Miller, MD
University of Toronto.

Official peer reviewer for Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel to review Safety Code 6.

"..this is a conflicted panel, with insufficient expertise in Epidemiology – it is unfortunate that the Royal Society failed to amend the membership of the panel as requested by some of us. This is a report to the Royal Society of Canada, not a report of the Royal Society..."

(click for full analysis)

MartinBlank1

Dr. Martin Blank PhD.
Columbia University.

Official peer reviewer for Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel to review Safety Code 6.

"..despite its length and seeming breadth of coverage, the report contains deficiencies which lead to questions about its conclusions."

(click for full analysis)
 
Your Language:
English French Spanish

Scientists and Doctors Appeals to MoH

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

Stand Up As Canadians...