Home Page

Share this:

Health Canada

health-canada

Health Canada - “Health Canada has previously committed to doing a public consultation. Advice from the RSC's Expert Panel, as well as comments received during the upcoming public consultation, will be considered in the development of the final revised version of Safety Code 6.”


Public Consultation will be open until July 15th, 2014

click to view Health Canada's Press Release


We URGE Health Canada to follow international scientific best practices in the final review of this version of Saftey Code 6, including full transparency as to how data was sought, selected, weighed and synthesized to answer specific questions. In addition there should be disclosure of corporate, financial and other potential conflict of interest for all panel members and for HC scientists involved in the revision.

Health Canada's Commitment to Regulatory
Transparency and Openness
(click to view HC's website)



Rationale Document for the Safety Code 6 Revisions
(click to view)

Technical Guide for Interpretation and Compliance Assessment of Safety Code 6
(click to view)

Many questions remain about the update underway from Health Canada regarding Safety Code 6. Please ask Minister Ambrose to ensure all outstanding issues are completely resolved.

  1. Health Canada “will consider comments related to the scientific and technical aspect of Safety Code 6 in the development of the final revised guideline”. To date, Health Canada has not followed international best practices in its updates of SC6. This includes:
    1. Listing the studies included and excluded [with reasons], evidence tables, grading of study quality to permit meaningful public participation to ensure a “rigorous, transparent” review
    2. For the weight of evidence, adapting and adopting a framework such as that proposed by the US National Toxicology Program with complete transparency on assumptions, interpretations and decisions
    3. Review the original research publications, not just review articles
    4. Ensure the panel has the mandate, capability and resources to validate and further update the literature searches;
    5. For the first time, publish a monograph from the SC6 update.
  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. 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?
  4. SC6 was created in 1979 to protect workers and visitors to federal buildings. What scientific proof is there 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?
  5. SC6 is based on heating tissue after 6 minutes exposure? How is that relevant to today’s constant exposure?
  6. In terms of transparency, where is the timely disclosure of the interests of all panel members and HC scientists involved in the revision?
  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?

If history repeats, the next update of Safety Code 6 will be in 2019. Health Canada cannot continue its incomplete review process. Too many Canadians continue to be exposed to wireless radiation with guidelines that have not seen any major revisions since first published in 1979. Send a direct email URGING Health Minister Rona Ambrose and Health Canada to follow international scientific best practices in the final review of this version of Safety Code 6. Use the above questions as suggestions or provide your own comments.

What are Scientific 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.

Responses to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster

Health-Canada-logo


On Feb 20th, 2014 Health Canada quietly released a document entitled “Busting Myths on Safety Code 6”. This attempt to instill public confidence in safety exposure levels to wireless radiation is using false and unsubstantiated claims. This was again repeated on the newly released 60 day public consultation web page posted May 16th, 2014.

Gone are the days where the public will accept you are safe just because Health Canada says you are....Canadians and scientists want and deserve proof with an open and transparent review inclusive of the current evidence showing biological harm from wireless radiation.

C4ST and experts from around the world have come together to provide the real facts around the specific points Health Canada addresses in their Myth Buster document. Here it is:

Health CanadaEven a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.
The TruthC4ST has found NO studies on children showing that radiofrequency/microwave radiation is safe and NO studies that prove continuous exposure is safe.

Children are not little adults, their skulls are thinner and the tissues of a child’s head, including the bone marrow and the eye, absorb significantly more energy than those in an adult head. A peer reviewed study by Gandhi et. al published in 2012, showed that radiation from a cell phone penetrated 10% of an adult head; 70% of the skull of a five year old. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

Health Canada Fact
Even a small child, following continuous exposure from multiple sources of RF energy, would not experience adverse health effects provided that the exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are respected.

C4ST Correction
C4ST has found NO studies on children showing that radiofrequency/microwave radiation is safe and NO studies which show that continuous exposure is safe - such as from cell phones, cell towers and antennae, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, etc.


Brain Cancer: Children are not little adults. Children's skulls are thinner and certain tissues of a child’s head, including the bone marrow and the eye, absorb significantly more energy than those in an adult head. A peer reviewed study by Gandhi et. al published in 2012, showed that radiation from a cell phone penetrated 10% of an adult head; 70% of the skull of a five year old.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884

DNA damage: Children are growing relatively rapidly (DNA is replicating faster). Single and double strand DNA breakage could impact a child's development in many ways. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Phillips+Singh+lai+DNA

Behavioural difficulties: A well designed peer-reviewed study found that children whose mothers used cell phones while pregnant were more likely to have emotional problems and be hyperactive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18467962

This finding was supported by animal studies at Yale University which showed ADHD-like behaviour in the young of exposed, pregnant mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Aldad+2012

Ability to learn and remember: Dr. Martha Herbert of Harvard School of Medicine wrote: “Wi-Fi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24113318
http://www.c4st.org/news/item/scientific-research/harvard-doctor-warns-about-wi-fi-in-schools.html

Health CanadaA number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.
The TruthThere is scientific evidence to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields can cause physical symptoms. These authors conclude that they demonstrated the neurological syndrome "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" in the examined subject. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=19460&l=e

This scientific panel of International experts published a paper that recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443

Canada: The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities CHRA’s medical perspective on environmental sensitivities states that “approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities and many more are somewhat sensitive to traces of chemicals and/or electromagnetic phenomena in the environment.” http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/envsensitivity_en_1.pdf

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

Health Canada Statement
A number of people have described an assortment of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the symptoms attributed to electro hypersensitivity conditions are real, scientific evidence has failed to demonstrate that they are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.

C4ST Correction

There is scientific evidence to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields can cause physical symptoms


The authors conclude that they demonstrated the neurological syndrome "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" in the examined subject. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=19460&l=e

Based on the Heart Rate Variability analyses of the 69 subjects, 7% were classified as being "moderately to very" sensitive, 29% were "little to moderately" sensitive, 30% were "not too little" sensitive and 6% were "unknown". These results are not psychosomatic and are not due to electromagnetic interference. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

A scientific panel of International experts meeting in Seletun, Norway published a paper that recognizes that the body of evidence on EMF requires a new approach to protection of public health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21268443

This paper provides recommendations to assist health professionals in caring for individuals complaining of EHS. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22153604

Canada:

The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability. This includes extraordinary sensitivities to electromagnetic phenomena at levels of exposure commonly tolerated.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities

Its Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities states “approximately 3% of Canadians have been diagnosed with environmental sensitivities and many more are somewhat sensitive to traces of chemicals and/or electromagnetic phenomena in the environment.”
http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/envsensitivity_en_1.pdf

The following physicians treat patients with electrosensitivity:

Dr. Riina Bray MD, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital.
http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/news-and-events/connect/the-effects-of-invisible-waves

The National Post: “Dr. Bray’s clinic may be the only mainstream medical facility in Canada that routinely treats patients for a condition known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/11/sick-of-wi-fi-the-debate-over-its-safety-is-not-going-away/

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care committed to providing nearly half a million dollars to kick start a program for family medicine graduates to complete an extra year of focused training in environmental health by collaborating with physicians at the Women’s College Hospital clinic.
http://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2014/04/building-expertise-in-environmental-health.html

Other countries support electrohypersensitivity:

Sweden: Electrosensitivity is an officially recognized impairment. Some hospitals have built special rooms with very low wireless radiation so that people who are sensitive can get medical care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178584

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15368370601044150?journalCode=ebm

The Austrian Medical Association has adopted guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of illness caused by wireless radiation. Austria’s checkpoint for physicians lists 24 symptoms ranging from anxiety and depression to blood pressure problems and heart palpitations.
http://freiburger-appell-2012.info/media/EMF%20Guideline%20OAK-AG%20%202012%2003%2003.pdf

Health CanadaThere is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk when Safety Code 6 exposure limits are respected.
The TruthThere is very concerning evidence that children and teenagers are at an increased risk at exposure levels well below Safety Code 6. Manufacturers put warnings, some especially for children, in their manual that comes with their devices.

Cell phone manufacturers' cautionary statements:
Every major manufacturer of cell phones in the world issues warnings to keep their devices away from direct contact with the body. http://www.c4st.org/news/major-device-safety-warnings.html

Blackberry: Warns people to keep their phones an inch away from any part of your body when on “including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers.”

Apple: "…keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holsters that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) separation between iPhone and the body."

Schools: The letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) to the director of the Peel District school board (Ontario) strongly advised the Board to turn off the Wi-Fi and hardwire computers to avoid “a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address.” http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/cell-tower-situations/Peel-DSB/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine_Letter_to_PDSB.pdf

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth” 
Frequent users of cell phones, such as children and teenagers, are at an increased risk of adverse health effects caused by exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
There is no evidence that children and teenagers are at increased risk when Safety Code 6 exposure limits are respected.

C4ST Correction

There is very concerning evidence that children and teenagers are at an increased risk at exposure levels well below Safety Code 6. Manufacturers put warnings, some especially for children, in their manual that comes with their devices.



Brain cancer:
Dr. Lennart Hardell and his research team at Orebro University in Sweden showed that children who start using a mobile phone in early years have an increased risk for developing a glioma (a very aggressive form of brain cancer) by the time they are in their 20’s.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939605

Cell phone manufacturers' cautionary statements:
Every major manufacturer of cell phones in the world issues warnings to keep their devices away from direct contact with the body.
http://www.c4st.org/news/major-device-safety-warnings.html

Blackberry: warns to keep their phones an inch away from any part of your body whenever turned on “including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers.”
http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/Blackberry-Manual-RF-Warning.pdf

Apple: warns "to keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips or holsters that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8th inch) separation between iPhone and the body."

Schools:
The letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) to the director of the Peel District school board (Ontario) strongly advised the Board to turn off the Wi-Fi and hardwire computers to avoid “a widespread public health hazard that the medical system is not yet prepared to address.”
http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/cell-tower-situations/Peel-DSB/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine_Letter_to_PDSB.pdf

Belgium:
As of March 1, 2014, in Belgium, it is illegal to sell or market “kiddie-phones”, mobile phones that are specially designed for children.
http://newsvoice.se/2013/10/18/belgium-bans-mobile-phones-for-children/

United States:
A letter from the President of the American Academy of Paediatrics (comprising 60,000 health professionals) to the Acting Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states: “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation…. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures”.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

Health CanadaCanada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
The Truth40% of the world’s population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada.

China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits 100 times safer than Canada. http://buildingbiology.ca/media/pdf/rf_exposure_limits_cell_antennas.pdf

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Many countries have limits 100 times lower than Safety Code 6. This must mean Safety Code 6 doesn't protect my health.

Health Canada Fact 
Canada's limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

C4ST Correction

China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have wireless radiation safety limits 100 times safer than Canada. http://buildingbiology.ca/media/pdf/rf_exposure_limits_cell_antennas.pdf

40% of the world’s population lives in countries with codes safer than Canada.


France:
In October, 2013, the French National Safety Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health, ANSES, “recommends limiting the population’s exposure to radiofrequencies – in particular from mobile phones – especially for children and intensive users.”
http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/PRES2013CPA18EN_0.pdf

India:
In Sept., 2013 the City of Mumbai, India adopted a policy prohibiting cell towers on schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages and juvenile correction homes; prohibiting nearby antennas from being directed toward such buildings; and requiring that antennas on such buildings be removed.
http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Public%20Relation%20Officer/Press%20Release/Public%20Notice%20for%20Chief%20Engineer%20Development%20Plan%20Department%20eng.pdf

Russia:
In June, 2012 the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection officially recommended that Wi-Fi not be used in schools. http://youtu.be/5CemiJ-yIA4

Health CanadaWhen developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach.
The TruthHealth Canada ignores hundreds of studies showing adverse effects and has not divulged how the evaluation was conducted.

Health Canada never published its criteria, methodology or followed the international best practices associated with a proper evaluation of the scientific evidence for Safety Code 6.

As stated in an article by Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto: “Still more problematic, was the panel's narrow scope which focused on established medical risks from radiofrequency waves rather than emerging research.” http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/14/wireless-devices-cancer-risk_n_5148740.html

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Health Canada ignores certain studies, especially those that show adverse health effects resulting from exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach.

C4ST Correction

Health Canada ignores hundreds of studies showing adverse effects and has not divulged how it has done its evaluation.



“’The Weight of evidence’” (WOE) concept and its associated methods should be fully described when used” states Douglas L.Weed, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, in a peer-reviewed paper. Health Canada has never made public its definition of "weight-of-evidence", how it decides which data is used in their assessment and how it is evaluated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506981

Nor has Health Canada ever published its criteria, methodology or followed the international best practices associated with a proper evaluation of the scientific evidence for Safety Code 6. When the "extensive Rationale” that Health Canada provided to the Royal Society Panel to support its 2013 version of Safety code 6 was finally obtained, it contained 65 references (29 from the years 2007 to 2013). In comparison, the BioInitiative 2012 report had over 1800 new references from its 2007 report and in a recent update said there were over 6,000 studies demonstrating biological effects. http://www.bioinitiative.org/potential-health-effects-emf/

As stated in the HuffPost Living Canada article, by Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, “Still more problematic, was the panel's narrow scope which focused on established medical risks from radiofrequency waves rather than emerging research.” The “panel” referenced in Dr. Miller’s quote was using the criteria for evaluating the science set out by Health Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/14/wireless-devices-cancer-risk_n_5148740.html

Health CanadaHealth Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and consider many different potential health effects including thermal, non-thermal and biological effects.
The TruthC4ST has identified over 300 peer-reviewed, studies published since 2009 that have not been considered by Health Canada’s recent analysis of Safety Code 6 that show harm from wireless radiation at levels significantly below Safety Code 6.

In a National Post article, April 15, 2014, Dr. Martin Blank, special lecturer in physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, stated “If you’re making a scientific decision, a scientific decision must bring in all relevant data. They did not. They ignored the data. They deliberately put it off the table.” Dr. Blank is referring to the recent Royal Society panel hired by Health Canada that followed Health Canada’s guidelines on evaluating the scientific evidence. Dr. Blank also stated “The panel has not considered important developments in cell biology.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/15/canadian-scientists-urge-more-research-into-safety-of-wireless-technology-saying-recent-report-downgrades-cancer-risk/

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Safety Code 6 is based only on preventing thermal (heating) effects and doesn't consider other harmful non-thermal/biological effects.

Health Canada Fact
Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and consider many different potential health effects including thermal, non-thermal and biological effects.

C4ST Correction

C4ST has identified over 300 peer-reviewed, studies published since 2009 that have not been considered by Health Canada’s recent analysis of Safety Code 6 that show harm from wireless radiation at levels significantly below Safety Code 6.

http://www.c4st.org/break-silence



“Roughly, 1800 new studies have been published in the last five years reporting effects at exposure levels ten to hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowed under safety limits in most countries of the world.” So state the editors of The BioInitiative 2012 Report which has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MScs, MAs or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/seci_2012_Preface.pdf

In a National Post article, April 15, 2014, Dr. Martin Blank, special lecturer in physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, stated “If you’re making a scientific decision, a scientific decision must bring in all relevant data. They did not. They ignored the data. They deliberately put it off the table.” Dr. Blank is referring to the recent Royal Society panel hired by Health Canada that followed Health Canada’s guidelines on evaluating the scientific evidence. Dr. Blank also stated “The panel has not considered important developments in cell biology.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/15/canadian-scientists-urge-more-research-into-safety-of-wireless-technology-saying-recent-report-downgrades-cancer-risk/

Safety Code 6 is based on the premise that non-ionizing radiation cannot harm humans. (Albert Einstein defined non-ionizing radiation as not being strong enough to knock an electron out of its orbit around an atom.) Albert Einstein passed away in 1955, the same year Steve Jobs was born. With all the advancements in technology and science, it is not appropriate to rely solely upon this theory.

Health CanadaCanadians are protected from the cumulative effects of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.
The TruthSafety Code 6 does not take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy.

There is no government agency, federal, provincial or municipal that currently has the mandate, ability or resources to measure the cumulative effects of wireless radiation from multiple sources: at home, work or school with Wi-Fi, cell phones, portable phones, near a cell tower, nor with smart meters on the exterior building.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTGINfeRkcg&feature=player_embedded

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
I live and work in a major city, so I am constantly exposed to RF energy, all the time. Safety Code 6 does not account for the cumulative effects of this exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
Canadians are protected from the cumulative effects of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.

C4ST Correction

Safety Code 6 cannot take into account the total exposure from all sources of RF energy. There is no government agency, federal, provincial or municipal that has the mandate, ability or resources to measure the cumulative effects of wireless radiation from multiple sources: at home, work or school with Wi-Fi, cell phones, portable phones, near a cell tower with smart meters on the exterior building. C4ST volunteers have made several requests to Industry Canada to measure specific areas and were told IC does not have the resources to do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTGINfeRkcg&feature=player_embedded

Health CanadaCanadians are protected from continuous exposure to multiple sources of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.
The TruthSafety code 6 was first published in 1979. It has not had any major changes since then.

In 1979 there were no cell phones (no cell towers), WIFI was in a handful of places at work, smart meters did not exist and portable phones were a rare luxury.

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Safety Code 6 does not protect my health, as it's based on an exposure time of only six minutes. Given our constant exposure to RF energy, especially in urban environments, this is not enough.

Health Canada Fact
Canadians are protected from continuous exposure to multiple sources of RF energy when Safety Code 6 is respected.

Health Canada Explanation
The limits for human exposure to RF energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous (24 hours a day/seven days a week) basis. This means that if someone, including a child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, that person would experience no adverse health effects.

The six minute time-averaging period specified in Safety Code 6 is used as a reference period against which to make a comparison between the measured RF energy levels and the limits in Safety Code 6.

This reference period is not a maximum exposure time. It means that the levels of RF energy from all sources combined shall not exceed the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 in any six-minute time period throughout the day.

C4ST Correction

Safety code 6 was first published in 1979. It has not had any major changes since then. In 1979 there were no cell phones (hence no towers), wifi was in a handful of places at work, smart meters did not exist and portable phones were a rare luxury. The limits set for manufacturers use a computer model based on a 220 lb. mannequin.

Health CanadaThe International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) did not find a direct link between RF energy exposure and cancer.
The TruthThe classification to 2B, possible carcinogen is meant to prompt health agencies around the world to start to take precautionary steps to protect our health. Since the 2011 designation, peer-reviewed papers have been written to move wireless to the next harmful level, 2A, probably carcinogenic. Health Canada is failing Canadians by not taking any action to raise awareness or strengthen guidelines to reduce exposure to this possible carcinogen.

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency energy as potentially carcinogenic. This means that I will get cancer due to my exposure to RF energy.

Health Canada Fact
The IARC did not find a direct link between RF energy exposure and cancer.

Health Canada Explanation
In 2011, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans.

Health Canada is in agreement with the World Health Organization and IARC that additional research in this area is warranted.

On October 4th 2011, Health Canada updated its advice to cell phone users on practical ways of reducing exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy from these devices. This advice pertains only to cell phone use, and not to RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi devices, since the intensity and distribution of the RF energy absorbed within the body from these devices are very different.

C4ST Correction

The classification to 2B, possible carcinogen is meant to prompt health agencies around the world to start to take precautionary steps to protect our health. Since the 2011 designation, peer-reviewed papers have been written to move wireless to the next harmful level, 2A, probably carcinogenic. Health Canada is failing Canadians by not taking any action to raise awareness or strengthen guidelines to reduce exposure to this possible carcinogen.

Health CanadaThe exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 protect the health of Canadians.
The TruthOver 100 Canadians and international scientists requested to and were not able to present at the public consultation on Oct. 28, 2013.

C4ST is encouraged by Health Canada’s commitment to consult further before finalizing Safety Code 6. We hope that this process will be open and transparent and follow international best practices of evaluating the scientific evidence.

Read More
C4ST-Logo-v2-1-bilingual

What Health Canada calls a “Myth”
Because Health Canada regularly reviews Safety Code 6, it must mean the current Code doesn't offer me enough protection.

Health Canada Fact
The exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 protect the health of Canadians.

Health Canada Explanation
To ensure that it continues to provide protection against all known adverse human health effects of RF fields, Safety Code 6 is reviewed on a regular basis. Currently a draft of a revised Safety Code 6 is undergoing review by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC). The RSC hosted a public consultation on Safety Code 6 in October, 2013. 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.

C4ST Correction

Over 100 Canadians were not able to present at the public consultation on Oct. 28, 2013. We are encouraged by Health Canada’s commitment to consult further before finalizing Safety Code 6. Along with the rest of Canada, we hope that this process will be open and transparent and follow international best practices of evaluating the scientific evidence.

There are many examples of other exposure guidelines that were eventually found not to be protective (eg. tobacco, asbestos, lead, radon, thalidomide, DDT, urea formaldehyde insulation, breast implants) that have been significantly revised downward.

The Issues with the RSC’s Conflicted Review of the Draft Version of SC6

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.

Municipalities Are Adopting New Protocols – Looking to HC to Revise SC6

Toronto - Prudent Avoidance

On Nov 4th, 2013 the Toronto Board Of Health REJECTED the recommendation of the Medical Officer of Health Dr David McKeown to drop Toronto’s Prudent Avoidance policy (100 times more protective than Safety Code 6). This is a huge win for Toronto, and re confirms the largest city in Canada’s concerns for tighter exposure guidelines on EMR.

Read More »

Guelph - Calls for Moratorium on Towers/Antenna Until SC6 is Revised

The City of Guelph has joined the towns of Oakville and Thorold in asking Industry Canada to put a moratorium on all cell tower/antenna installations until Safety Code 6 has been revised.

Read More »

Thorold - Municipality Calls for a Review of Health Canada’s SC6

The Council of the City of Thorold urge Health Canada to re-evaluate the safety limits contained within Safety Code 6 that relate to Radiofrequency Exposure.

Read More »

Simcoe- Council Looks to Health Canada Regarding SC6

Norfolk council has extended its commitment to a cell phone antenna in Simcoe that was at the centre of a health controversy several years ago.

Read More »

Oakville - Approves Motions to Radio Communications Facilities Protocol

The Town of Oakville passed a motion on August 12, 2013 requesting that Industry Canada place a moratorium on the approval of any new radiocommunication facilities located within certain criteria.

Read More »

This issue is under active consideration by


Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
Canadian Medical Association
Council of Family Physicians of Canada
Canadian Paediatric Society
Canadian Cardiovascular Society

Dr. Hugh Scully
B.A., M.D., M. Sc., F.R.C.S[C]., F.A.C.S.

Send A Letter - HC March Review of SC6

Send a direct email URGING Health Minister Rona Ambrose and Health Canada to follow international scientific best practices in the final review of this version of Safety Code 6. Use the questions to the left as suggestions, or provide your own comments. Your comments will be posted to HC website upon completion of the consultation period.


Select Recipients

Ask Minister Ambrose and Health Canada to...
  • Follow through on their commitment for transparency and openness
  • Adopt international best practices when reviewing SC6
  • Adopt and expand on the RSC Panel’s recommendations
  • Protect Canadians from unsafe levels of wireless radiation


Health Canada requires submissions to be in either MS Word or Adobe PDF format. Please type your introduction here and then attach your comments as one of the aforementioned formats.

Your submission will be posted to the Health Canada website once the consultation closes on July 15th, 2014.

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