Saturday, May 24, 2014

C4ST Response to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster

C4ST Response to Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Myth Buster


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.

Read More
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.

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.

Canada: The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) recognizes environmental sensitivities as a disability. 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.”

Read More
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.
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.”

Read More
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.

Read More
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.”

Read More
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.”

Read More
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.

Read More
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
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
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

No comments:

Post a Comment