Home Page

Share this:

Safety Code 6 - Under Review by a Conflicted Panel of Scientists

conflicted4

November 28th, 2013 UPDATE: Royal Society of Canada Chair of Expert Panels Dr. Geoff Flynn has been replaced by Dr. Dave Layzell from the University of Calgary. Read Dr. Dave Layzell's BIO HERE

October 28th, 2013 UPDATE: Today in Ottawa a public consulation was held by the Royal Society of Canada for input by the public in regards to their independent review of Safety Code 6. During this public consultation time C4ST released a press release that Health Canada is not allowing the Royal Society to run a proper independent review. We have in our possession from Canada’s Privacy Act, called Access to Information requests, demonstrating beyond any doubt Health Canada has hampered the independence of the Royal Society and restricted information that is to be made public. For more information about the public consultation CLICK HERE

September 27th, 2013 UPDATE: A new chair, as well as two new members have been confirmed for the expert panel reviewing Safety Code 6. The new Chair of the Panel, effective immediately, is Dr. Paul Demers, Professor with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and Clinical Professor with the University of British Columbia. Additionally, Dr. Bryan Kolb, FRSC, a neuroscientist from the University of Lethbridge, and Dr. Anne-Marie Nicol, the Principal Investigator of the CAREX Canada Project, from Simon Fraser University, will also join the panel. Drs. Kolb and Nicol will assume the roles vacated by Dr. Brian Christie and Dr. Louise Lemyre, who are unable to continue with the project for personal family reasons and academic commitments. Full biographies of all panellists are available here.

The public consultation will be held in Ottawa on Monday, October 28. Additional details will appear in this space shortly. The RSC will directly contact those individuals who have previously been confirmed to speak at the session. Additional invitations will then be extended. Written submissions from members of the public continue to be encouraged. For further details, please consult the RSC protocols for public consultations.

August 8th, 2013 UPDATE:   Concerns have flared over possible conflicts of interest of a second member of a panel chosen by the Royal Society of Canada to examine safety levels for cell towers, cellphones and wireless devices.

Second Wi-Fi Panel Member's Conflicts are Problematic

August 6th, 2013 UPDATE:  The first article written in response to the Moulder Conflict.
Safety Review Panel Suffers from Conflict of Interest

July 29th, 2013 UPDATE: 
A second scientist is under fire for conflict-of-interest on a panel examining safety levels for cell towers, cell phones and WiFi in Canada.
pdfConflict of Interest Shakes Canadas Review of Wireless and Cell Phone Safety

An update to the report done by the RSC in 1999 (below) this update was completed in 2001-2003.
pdfUpdated RSC Panel Review of SC6

Attached below is the last review of Safety Code 6 (1999) by the conflicted panel of the RSC. A must read if you haven’t seen it.

pdfRSC Panel Review of SC6 - 1999

July 19th, 2013 UPDATE: Facing public controversy over a potential conflict of interest revealed in a CMAJ investigation, the chair of a Royal Society of Canada panel reviewing federal safety guidelines for Wi-Fi, cellphones and other radiofrequency devices has stepped aside. Read the full article here.

July 16th, 2013 UPDATE:
 Letter written to Dr. Yolande Grise, President of the RSC, re Conflict of Interest on the Expert Panel Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices. Also contained in this letter is significant evidence as to why Dr. John Moulder is yet another conflicted panel member.
pdfLetter to RSC President

July 10th, 2013 UPDATE: Dr. Daniel Krewski has resigned from his role as chair of the “independent” federal government panel to study potential Wi-Fi health effects after allegations surfaced that he had previously received a substantial government contract.
pdfPanel Chair Resigns

July 5th, 2013 UPDATE:
Amidst the pressure of additional scrutiny, Daniel Krewski announced today that he is stepping down from the review panel, vacating his position as the chair.
pdfKrewski Steps Down July 5th 2013

June 26th. 2013 UPDATE: Below is the response being given by MP offices at this time re the RSC conflict.
pdfMP Response re RSC Conflict can be found here.

UPDATE JUNE 19
: RSC Wi-Fi panel criticized for undisclosed conflict! The Royal Society of Canada will reconsider its decision to appoint a University of Ottawa professor to chair a panel that will assess the safety of radio wave emitting devices such as cellular phones, following a CMAJ investigation that reveals a potential conflict-of-interest.
Read the full article here

UPDATE JUNE 19: RSC Secretary of Expert Panels responds to C4ST claims of a conflicted panel inviting C4ST's CEO Frank Clegg to present his concerns in Ottawa.
Read the RSC Letter and Mr. Clegg's response here

Health Canada has updated Safety Code 6 and is employing an "Independent" panel to review its work. It hired the Royal Society of Canada, which has strict guidelines to protect against conflict of interest, to conduct the panel.  But the conflict of interest guidelines have been relaxed for selecting the academically credentialed panel. Some members turn out to have financial relationships with companies, industry associations and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. At the same time, some of them have consistently published material and statements demonstrating predetermined viewpoints that they don’t believe published evidence showing that humans are in danger well below the existing safety threshold published in Safety Code 6. The selection of a significantly conflicted panel is unlikely to make decisions to protect Canadians. We are concerned that the results are predetermined.

C4ST LETTERS RE: RSC CONFLICTED PANEL

C4ST-RSC C4ST- Letter to Prime Minister Harper re: RSC Panel SelectionC4ST to Minister Of Health Aglukkaq re: RSC Panel Selection

Why Should You Care?

Safety Code 6 regulates the amount of radiation from cell phones and cell towers, Wi-Fi whether in home, school or at work, smart meters, baby monitors, portable phones and other wireless devices.

Safety Code 6 has not had a major update in over 40 years. China has guidelines that are 100 times safer than Canada.

There is no regulation or research regarding the accumulation of radiation levels from using several wireless devices simultaneously, as is common today.  In fact, no wireless installations are routinely monitored for compliance with Safety Code 6.

Health effects of any wireless devices are outside the purview of your local municipal government or the provincial government. Health Canada, through Safety Code 6 is the authority to which all levels of government defer.

The Royal Society, Canada’s august body of academics has been assigned by Health Canada to independently review its latest update to Safety Code 6 according to the latest science on the matter of radiation exposure. The Royal Society has published clearly defined conflict of interest guidelines which, we believe, have been ignored or disregarded in the process of selecting this committee.

While the appointed Committee is made up of well credentialed academics, some members have financial relationships with companies, industry associations, and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. In addition, some of their published material and statements demonstrate predetermined viewpoints revealing that they don’t believe the evidence showing harm exists below the existing safety threshold. See our section entitled “Royal Society Panel bio’s”.

This panel’s power over the public health of our nation at this moment is far too important to relax the Standards of Conflict of Interest normally imposed by the Royal Society’s selection committee for expert panelists. 

On behalf of our members, the national organization Citizens 4 Safe Technology, C4ST has asked that the Royal Society review panel be dissolved and a new one be assembled made up of truly independent reviewers.

At such a time when medical doctors are diagnosing people in increasing numbers with debilitating symptoms from wireless radiation levels well below the current Safety Code 6 limits, and medical associations are calling for precaution and protection, and the World Health Organization has declared all wireless radiation as possibly carcinogenic,  this Safety Code must be revised. 

The selection of a committee to review Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 should include the scientists whose published studies show the weakening of the blood brain barrier, not those who refute it.  It should include the scientists who have shown the effects of wireless internet connections on heart rate variability, not the ones who haven’t read it. It should include the scientists who are conducting their research independently through universities, not the ones receiving funding from the lobby group trying to protect the interests of wireless companies.

This panel should be about science and public health, not maintaining the status quo in an age of rapidly changing technology, and society’s rapid adoption of this technology. We believe it is the single most important panel on the current landscape of Canadian public health.  The selection of a deeply conflicted panel is unlikely to make decisions to protect Canadians. We are concerned that the results are predetermined. 

The Royal Society of Canada should answer why it has ignored multiple conflicts of interest, why it has omitted independent scientists doing leading edge work on this topic and why it has included scientists with ideological and financial conflicts.

Use the form opposite to send an email supporting our request to dissolve this panel and select a new panel in an open, public and transparent process.

Key RSC Panel Selection Guidelines

Below are some excerpts from the RSC's selection guidelines for forming expert panels to undertake such reviews as the proposed review of Safety Code 6.  You can find the full RSC selection guidelines here, or by following the link to the right.

From the Royal Society of Canada: 

Expert Panels:   Manual of Procedural  Guidelines (June 2010)

Under section 5.4 Procedures for Addressing Possible Imbalance and Conflict of Interest.  
Selection committee has failed to guard against conflict of interest and lack of balance in panel composition, has failed to identify individuals whose service in this panel is quite obviously inappropriate.

Points of View and Conflict of Interest” form, [Form 2],
Under section 5.4 Procedures for Addressing Possible Imbalance and Conflict of Interest. 
The Selection committee has failed to:  to identify individuals whose service on this panel is conflicted and therefore inappropriate.

Pg 12.   Sect. 3,  Assembling the Panel, Composition and Balance:
“… a balanced panel is one that has good prospects of achieving impartiality in its final conclusions and recommendations.”

The Panel Profile must explicitly Address the following:
“2. Degree of controversy: Do the problems to be addressed have alternative resolutions that are controversial, affecting parties who have strong emotional, political, or financial stakes in the outcome, or are there no stakeholders with strong commitments to a particular outcome?”
4. Will the panel's conclusions adequately discuss the uncertainties?

Pg 14  Guidelines for Interviewing Panelists and Chair:   
“The subject of balance and conflict of interest is especially important to cover well. 
“We are trying to assemble a panel that is free of direct conflicts of interest and appropriately balanced with respect to different points of view on the study's issues. For this purpose, each panel member will be asked to complete a confidential form, the purpose of which is to disclose any “points of view” or conflict of interest. At the first meeting, panel members will also be asked to discuss their backgrounds and activities as indications of their perspective and any strongly held views or commitments relevant to the study task.

Organizational affiliations.
Do you have any business affiliations or volunteer non-business affiliations, (with or without remuneration), such as with professional societies, trade associations, and civic groups, or with organizations that might benefit in a direct way from this study if the issues came out a certain way? To your knowledge, have any of these organizations taken a public stand on the issues related to the study?  

Financial interests.
Do you have financial interests, whether through employment, consultancies, or investments, in companies or other entities whose value or business would be directly affected by a particular resolution of the issues in this study?

..pg 15 .. continued conflict…
* Research support. Do you receive any research support from agencies, organizations, etc., that might have an interest in the outcome of this study? 
* Government service. Have you provided services or been employed by a federal, state, or local government, including advisory boards, that would be seen as relevant to the topics covered by this study?  
* Public positions. Have you published articles, given testimony, or made speeches that might be viewed as stating a commitment to a particular view on the issues in this study? Do you hold office in or otherwise formally represent an organization that is closely identified with a particular point of view on the issues this study may address?

“If an obvious conflict of interest has been identified, indicate that it could pose a problem for panel membership..” 

SECTION 5:    GUIDELINES ON DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING PANEL SERVICE.                          

Page  24
“…the report must be, and must be perceived to be, (1) free of any significant conflict of interest, and (2) not compromised by any apparent imbalance in points of view. Conclusions by fully competent panels can be undermined by allegations of lack of objectivity or conflict of interest among its members.”

5.2 “Points of View” and “Conflict of Interest.”
"...Individuals participating on expert panels are asked by the Study Director to complete a “Points of View and Conflict of Interest” form.”

“Information regarding balancing of viewpoints or conflict of interest is carefully considered by the Committee on Expert Panels in the overall composition of panels and in the appointment of individuals to panels.”

5.3 Defining “Points of View” and “Conflict of Interest.”
“Points of View” means views stated or positions taken that are largely intellectually motivated or that arise from the close identification or association of an individual with the positions or perspectives of a particular group.  
Pg 25.…”Holding any such viewpoint does not in itself constitute grounds for disqualification from panel service. Indeed, it is sometimes necessary, in order to ensure that a panel is fully competent, to appoint members in such a way as to represent a balance of viewpoints, backgrounds, or professional or organizational perspectives.”

It is also essential that the work of panels not be compromised by any significant conflict of interest, or in some circumstances the significant appearance of conflict of interest, on the part of any member of a panel or anyone associated with the work of a panel. For this purpose, the term “conflict of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of an individual because it (l) could impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. The existence of a significant conflict of interest ordinarily disqualifies an individual from service.

2. Individual Economic Impact.  Pg 26.

Paragraph (ii) “…an individual should not participate in a study in which there is a significant possibility, based upon the nature and scope of the study, that  policy recommendations or other similar advice resulting from the study would, if  implemented, have a direct and substantial economic impact on the individual, on others with whom the individual is closely associated..” 

Paragraph  (ii)  If an independent observer could reasonably conclude that the individual's objectivity could be compromised because the particular company involved would be likely to experience a direct and substantial change in market value if the regulatory requirements under study were changed, that individual would have a significant conflict of interest with respect to that study.  

Sect 4. Public Statements and Positions.  
An individual may have become committed to a fixed position on a particular issue through public statements (e.g., testimony, speeches, interviews, etc.), through publications (e.g., articles, books, etc.), through close identification or association with the positions or perspectives of a particular group, or through other personal or professional activities. This would ordinarily be an indicator of the holding of an identifiable viewpoint.   

5.4 Procedures for Addressing Possible Imbalance and Conflict of  Interest.
“Adjustments may then be made, for example, by adding additional members to the panel or by limiting or reconsidering the participation of a particular individual. If previously unknown connections revealed by the forms raise questions, they are taken up with the individual involved. If questions persist, the final decision regarding the composition of a panel or a particular individual's service on the panel rests with the President of RSC.

Points of View and Conflict of Interest” forms are to be sent to all members when they are appointed (or immediately after their acceptance). When completed, forms should be returned to the Study Director.

Panel Bio's (including the parts they didn't tell you!)

The Royal Society of Canada has been tasked with forming an “independent review panel” to examine whether Safety Code 6 is up to date or not. You can see the qualifications of the Royal Society Panel here.

What you will not see is that many of the panelists including its Chair were curiously selected despite failing the Royal Society’s clear conflict of interest guidelines. If you look on the Royal Society site you will learn of their legitimate academic credentials. However here’s what you won’t learn:

Daniel Krewski PhD, Panel Chair:

CBC Television’s Marketplace highlighted Dr. Krewski in 2003 when he was simultaneously conducting public health research on the danger of cell phones, while also running the McLaughlin Institute for Public Health which was created by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. This association is designed to create a smooth regulatory environment for wireless companies in Canada, not to protect the health of Canadians.  See Daniel Krewski in this Health Canada video on Cell Phones.  His company, Risk Sciences International also was awarded a $125,000 contract by Industry Canada to prepare various articles dispelling the public opinion about the dangers of wireless communications.  It has since been noted that he failed to disclose this conflict.  pdfThe highlights of this contract can be found here.

Daniel Krewski, director of the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa, agrees that there is no credible reason for Canadians to be concerned over the use of Wi-Fi.

“Based on literally thousands of papers that have been written on health of radio-frequency fields, we have no clear evidence the fields cause adverse human health effects,” said Dr. Krewski, who worked on a study released earlier this year that found cell phones do not appear to increase cancer risk in humans.

WiFi in Schools Spark Parental Fears

July 5th, 2013 UPDATE: Amidst the pressure of additional scrutiny, Daniel Krewski announced today that he is stepping down from the review panel, vacating his position as the chair.
pdfKrewski Steps Down July 5th 2013

 

Dr. Louise Lemyre (University of Ottawa):

Dr Louise Lemyre, Ph.D. is a Full Professor at the School of Psychology, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada, and the McLaughlin Research Chair on Psychosocial Risk at the Institute of Population Health of the University of Ottawa, where she leads a research unit on psychosocial analysis of health ‘GAP-Santé’. She obtained her Master's degree from the University of British Columbia (UBC) and her doctorate at Université Laval in Social Psychology. She then went for an interdisciplinary postdoctorate in social epidemiology and medical sociology at the British MRC Social Research Unit at the University of London, UK. Her work examines the social environment, especially risk perception, risk communication and risk management, in the context of public health and public safety. She was the founding scientific leader of the national Psychosocial Cluster of the Center for Security Science Canada.

 

Dr. Brian Christie (University of Victoria):

Dr. Brian Christie obtained his Ph.D. (1992) from the University of Otago (New Zealand) after obtaining a B.Sc. (1987) and M.Sc. (1989) from the University of Calgary. His post-doctoral work was with Dr. Dan Johnston (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX) and Dr. Terry Sejnowski (The Salk Institute, San Diego, CA). Dr. Christie is a Michael Smith Senior Scholar in the Island Medical Program and Division of Medical Sciences at UVic, and is the Director of the Neuroscience Program at UVic. He has an active research program that examines how exercise can facilitate learning performance, synaptic plasticity, neurogenesis and synaptogenesis in the developing and aged brain.  He has shown that exercise can not only produce new brain cells, but also induces structural and functional changes in existing brain cells. His current work seeks to understand how we can exploit this innate potential for brain repair and regeneration in a variety of neuropathological disease models (including mild Traumatic Brain Injury, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Fragile-X Syndrome) as well as the aging brain. Out of the classroom Dr. Christie is actively involved in coaching and supporting amateur sports in Victoria.

 

John Moulder:

Testified in court that he has made hundreds of thousands of dollars acting as a professional witness in cases where his employers were attempting to deny a claim by someone injured from electrical radiation.  He is repeatedly quoted in the media to refute the effects of wireless radiation exposure, no matter how obvious the cause and effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995 – Microwave News

Palfreman's experts on epidemiology were two electric utility consultants: Dr. John Moulder of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, an expert on using radiation to treat cancer, and, to a lesser extent, Dr. Patricia Buffler, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. He used them to disparage the Swedish childhood cancer study by Drs. Maria Feychting and Anders Ahlbom. http://microwavenews.com/front.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1997 – Microwave News

Three of the four featured American speakers are among the most outspoken skeptics of EMF health effects. Dr. Patricia Buffler of the University of California, Berkeley, presented the epidemiological data and Dr. John Moulder of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, summarized the biomedical literature as a whole. Both Moulder and Buffler have served as paid experts for the electric utility industry. http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-f97issue.pdf

Haunted Housing: How Toxic Scare Stories Are Spooking the Public Out of House and Home, newly published by the Cato Institute ($11.95). The book focuses on radon, lead, asbestos and EMFs, giving much attention to the views on EMFs of Drs. John Moulder and David Hafemeister http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/m-j97issue.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2000 – Microwave News

The public needs the whole story, not false reassurance. Foster and Moulder and the editors of IEEE Spectrum have done a disservice to the IEEE’s 350,000 members, and to their own credibility. http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a00issue.pdf

The scientific evidence does not support the existence of cancer or other health and safety hazards from exposure to power frequency fields that are encountered in normal residential or most occupational environments,” which it defines as 24-hour average magnetic fields below 1 mT [10 mG]. Such levels “characteriz[e] the exposure of more than 99.5% of the U.S. population.” The statement was prepared by a subcommittee chaired by Ruth Miller of Kansas State University, Manhattan. The panel members were: Among others Kenneth Foster, John Moulder, Michael Repacholi 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2000 - CNN – Larry King Live – Aired August 9th, 2000

“ In Milwaukee is Dr. John Moulder, cancer and radiation researcher, medical college of Wisconsin, says they do not pose a cancer risk”

“ The evidence that’s out there now – and there’s a lot of it – does not suggest any link, neither do the epidemiology or the animal studies suggest a cancer connection, and the cellular and biophysical data doesn’t indicate any reason why we’d expect there to be. Probably, if they don’t cause cancer, we’ll never be able to prove that, because there’s no way to prove something doesn’t cause cancer.”

“From a biological health standpoint, there's no particular reason why kids should be at any greater hazard than adults”

“But the current evidence does not indicate there's any problem and there's a lot of research out there.”

Entire Transcript can be found HERE 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2001 – Microwave News

Following a series of six public hearings over the last year, the Australian Senate committee investigating mobile phone health issues is scheduled to issue its final report by March 29. Among the items learned by committee members on questioning witnesses at their last hearing, held in Canberra on March 2, are: (1) the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) has allocated a little more than 3 million euros (US$2.8 million) for health research this year, out of a total MMF annual budget of 3.9 million euros (US$3.6 million), according to Michael Milligan, the secretary general of the MMF; (2) Dr. John Moulder of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee earned approximately 8-10% of his income as a consultant to the telecom industry—when “averaged over the last couple of years”; http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/m-a01issue.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2002 – Microwave News

Moulder is a consultant to Xcel. According to spokesperson Ed Legge, Moulder testified on behalf of a 345kV power line between Minnesota and Wisconsin. And last year Moulder worked for Xcel’s partner in that project, the Wisconsin Public Service Corp. http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/m-a02issue.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2004 – Microwave News

When three cases of male breast cancer showed up in the same small office in Albuquerque in 2001, a lawsuit was quickly filed. “The odds of three men in one specific office getting breast cancer are a trillion to one,” said Sam Bregman, the plaintiffs’ attorney. He argued that the cancers were caused, at least in part, by EMFs from an electrical vault that was next to the basement office where the men worked. At the two-week trial in April 2003, Sam Milham testified for the men, while John Moulder was an expert witness for the defense. The jury decided that there was insufficient evidence to hold magnetic fields responsible and declined to award damages. Milham would not let the case rest. In a brief report published in the July issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Milham writes that, based on some conservative assumptions, the risk of breast cancer in that office was a hundred times the expected rate. Milham calculated that the chances of finding these three cases in that office were 100,000 to one. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/dispute-over-emf-cancer-risk-continues

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2005 – Microwave News

Moulder testified against the family of Richard Beissinger, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago who died of a brain tumor in 2003. His widow and five children were seeking worker's compensation for what they believed was an EMF-induced cancer. http://microwavenews.com/RR.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2005 - Mobile Phone (Cell Phone) Base Stations and Human Health – Author Dr John Moulder

Summary: This FAQ addresses the issue of whether base station transmitter/antennas for mobile phones (cellular phones, PCS phones), and other types of portable transceivers are a risk to human health.

2) Are scientists seriously concerned about possible health risks from mobile phone base station antennas?

Not really.

14E) Is it safe to live or work on the top floor of a building that has a mobile phone base station antenna on it?

In general this will not be a problem.

14F) Are use restrictions or "set-backs" required around mobile phone base station antenna sites and what is the "minimum safe distance"?

RF safety guidelines do not require either setbacks or use restrictions around mobile phone base station antenna sites, since power levels on the ground should not (by definition) be high enough to exceed the guidelines for continuous public exposure

“Some people have argued that base stations should be kept some distance away from "sensitive" areas. There is little logic to this argument”

18) Are there groups (such as children or the elderly) that are more sensitive to the effects of RF energy?

Possibly. Some groups in the general population might be more sensitive to the effects of RF energy than others, but no such groups have actually been found.

19C) Does RF energy from mobile phones or mobile phone base stations cause physiological or behavioral changes?

There are unreplicated reports of such effects. There are some studies that suggest that RF energy from hand-held mobile phones or mobile phone base stations might cause subtle biochemical, physiological or behavioral changes. However, none of the studies provides substantial evidence that mobile phone base stations might pose a health hazard.

There have been scattered reports of effects [17] that do not appear to be due to heating, the so called non-thermal effects [16, 20, 104]. None of these effects have been independently replicated, and most have no obvious connections to human health risks [185a]. The lack of biological effects from exposures to RF energy that do not produce biologically-significant temperature changes is not surprising, as there are no known biophysical mechanisms that would suggest that such effects were likely

21) Is there any replicated evidence that RF energy can cause cancer?

No. Even at high levels of exposure, there is no substantial evidence that RF energy can either cause or contribute to cancer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2006 – Microwave News

OUTSTANDING analysis of Moulders publishing record while Editor of Radiation http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2006 – Microwave News “Radiation Research” and The Cult of Negative Results

“John Moulder has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF Health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community.” He has worked for Radiation Research since the early 1990s and is now the senior editor. Over the past 16yrs, only one positive paper on microwave genotoxicity has appeared in Radiation Research... 80% of the negative papers (17 out of 21) published in Radiation Research were paid for either by industry of the US Air Force.

“Many of the negative EMF studies that have been published in Radiation Research were paid for by industry and the U.S. Air Force, both of which seek to control EMF research (often by stopping it) and to show that microwaves are essentially harmless except at high exposure levels. Promoting no-effect studies has long been part of their strategy to keep a lid on the microwave-health controversy.

“Moulder has been a consultant to the power, electronics and communications industries, as well as for anyone, it seems, who disputes the existence of EMF-induced adverse health effects. For years he posted his skeptical views on the health impacts of cell phones, base stations and power lines on his Web site, and these serve as lures for potential like-minded clients.”

Moulder testified against the family of Richard Beissinger, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago who died of a brain tumor in 2003. His widow and five children were seeking worker's compensation for what they believed was an EMF-induced cancer. At a hearing held in 2005, Moulder stated under oath that, in his opinion, "power-frequency magnetic fields do not cause any kind of brain cancer under any exposure, intensity and duration"

In March 2001, Moulder told an Australian senate committee that, on average, 8-10% of his income was from the telecommunications industry alone.

Entire article can be found HERE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011 – Microwave News

Moulder has argued against health effects from RF since 1987 http://microwavenews.com/ShortTakes.html?page=6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2013 – Channel 58 News Report - New concerns over cell phone radiation

"There is some data that suggests it might be a carcinogen. The bulk of the data says it's almost certainly not," insisted Dr. John Moulder”

“There's some data that points that way. But it's not probable,"

"Most carcinogens take a long time to cause cancer, by a long time, meaning decades, not years," explained Dr. Moulder.”

"I know many of the scientists involved, and I don't believe they would all be lying," commented Dr. Moulder.”

Entire Article Can be Found HERE

Video can be watched below:

 

Frank Prato:

Testified to the Parliamentary Health Committee in 2010 that there is no need to remove Wi-Fi from schools simply because children and parents are reporting the symptoms of microwave radiation exposure, because they are also exposed in other places. Prato also participated in a Health Canada video that suggested women may expose their unborn children to unlimited microwave radiation as long as it doesn’t heat their bellies.  See Frank Prato in this Health Canada video on Wifi.

 

Kenneth Foster:

Published a paper in the British Scientific Journal Nature calling for an end to all research that examines the risks of microwave radiation.  Further, here is a recent paper from Mr. Foster where he comments on countries such as China and Russia who have used the precautionary principal and have set radiation limits 100 times safer than Canada’s.  “The precautionary principle is well established in international law and enjoys widespread political support. However, it remains elusive in meaning and easily misused. And by their very nature, precautionary policies are set in the absence of scientific knowledge, not on the basis of such knowledge.”

Kenneth Foster also did a study on Wi-Fi exposure that was supported by the WiFi Alliance  (Foster KR, Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs utilizing Wi-Fi technology. Health Phys. 92:280-9, 2007). See FAQ:  WiFi and HealthThe Wifi Alliance is a “global non-profit organization with the goal of driving adoption of high-speed wireless local area networking.”  The WiFi Alliance is sponsored by T-mobile, Texas Instruments, Sony, Samsung, Qualcomm, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, LG, Intel, Huawei, Dell, Comcast, Cisco, Broadcom, and Apple.

Is this the organization you would trust to give you unbiased information about the safety of Wi-Fi?

 


 

This is the team that was selected to be independent in order to review the health affects of wireless radiation on Canadians. This team with its predetermined viewpoints and conflicted financial interests will oversee the most important scientific review of our time, a review that will define whether safety guidelines for radiation should be tightened and address the concerns of thousands of Canadians already reporting the effects of current exposure.

This “independent review panel” is not independent and is conflicted as per the Royal Society’s own guidelines. We are concerned its results are pre-determined, will not be objective and will not protect Canadians. C4ST has called on the government to dissolve the current and create a new committee using the Royal Society’s existing published guidelines for conflict of interest.

Use the form opposite to send an email supporting our request to dissolve this panel and select a new panel in a public and transparent process.

What YOU Should Do NOW

If you value your safety and that of your children, sitting around and waiting for someone else to act on your behalf is not an option.  Here's what you should do:
  • Educate Yourself
    We have significant resources right here on the C4ST website. Take a look at the "Educate Yourself" menu item, go right the overview of Safety Code 6 or check out one of the links below.
  • Share and Inform Others
    If you share our concern for the lack of independence of the Royal Society panel, let friends, neighbours and relatives know about this situation and encourage them to act too.
  • Stay Informed
    C4ST is committed to educating and informing Canadians and our policy makers about the dangers of the exposures to unsafe levels of radiation from technology, so join us.  Like us on Facebook social facebook box blue 16 and become a "citizen" 4 safe technology and we will keep you updated with the latest news and calls to action on matters affecting you.
  • Communicate
    Okay, so you're disappointed with your governments actions or lack thereof, so don't keep this to yourself, let them know.  Use the form opposite to send an email to our elected officials. This form will show up as a personal email from you, not a form letter or from C4ST. Send a letter to our Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the President of the Royal Society of Canada, your Member of Parliament and/or the Panel Members selected to review Safety Code 6.
Your Language:
English French Spanish

safetycode6

RSC Expert Panel Guidelines

 The Royal Society of Canada is in clear conflict of their own guidelines for panel selection

ExpertPanel ManualofProceduralGuidelines RSC

Stand Up As Canadians...

Send A Letter - Safety Code 6 Review Panel Conflict

The Safety Code 6 Review Panel is deeply conflicted and should be dissolved and replaced. Make some noise and let your government know that you demand a truly independent review.


Select Recipients

Explain why...
  • Safety Code 6 is critical to protecting Canadians and must be updated by this panel
  • You are concerned that the current panel is not independent
  • The panel should include scientists and medical professionals who believe that there are harmful effects of radiation levels less than Safety Code 6
  • Given the critical importance of this panel, the Royal Society of Canada should be tightening, not loosening its conflict of interest standards
  • There is an opportunity here to lead the world in protecting Canadians from the harmful effects of wireless radiation

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.