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.
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.”
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. Read one example here
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment