Canadian recommendations regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields

EMR Australia - Tuesday, September 08, 2015

During early 2015, the Canadian Government conducted a series of meetings in which witnesses provided testimony about the country’s health standard (Safety Code 6) and exposure to electromagnetic fields.

These meetings were conducted by a Panel of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Health, which published its report in June. The report concluded that ‘Safety Code 6 provided adequate protection from established adverse health effects’. However, in light of the evidence brought to the Committee, the Panel made the following 12 recommendations to Health Canada.

1. That the Government ... examine existing cancer data collection methods to improve the collection of information relating to wireless device use and cancer.

2. That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.

3. That the Government ... consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.

4. That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.

5. That the Government ... continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electro- magnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

6. That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside ex- perts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.

7. That the Government ... establish a system for Canadians to report potential diverse reactions to radiofrequency fields.

8. That an independent scientific body ... examine whether measures taken and guidelines provided in other countries, such as France and Israel, to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environ- ment, to radiofrequencies should be adopted in Canada.

9. That the Government ... develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home to ensure that Canadian families and children are reduc- ing risks related to radiofrequency exposure.

10. That Health Canada conduct a comprehensive review of all existing literature relating to radiofrequency fields and carcino- genicity based on international best practices.

11. That the Government ... consider funding research into the link between radiofrequency fields and potential health effects such as cancer, genetic damage, infertility, impairment to development and behaviour, harmful effects to eyes and on the brain, cardiovascular, biological and biochemical effects.

12. That the Government ... and manufacturers consider policy measures regarding the marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, in order to ensure they are aware of the health risks and how they can be avoided.

‘13th Report of the Standing Committee on Health, ‘Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the health of Canadians’ June, 2015, < RP8041315/412_HESA_Rpt13_PDF/412_HESA_Rpt13-e.pdf>.


About The Author - Lyn McLean is a consumer advocate, author and educator and has been monitoring and writing on the subject of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) for over 20 years. She is the director of EMR Australia.

Follow on Feedly follow us in feedly

Trackback Link
Post has no trackbacks.

Recent Posts



Dr Lawrence Anukam Dr. Neil Cherry Professor Rodney Croft Venice Resolution Paul Wentworth Dr Arpad Szallasi (MD) David Suzuki Grant Brecht Dr Siegal Sadetzki Dr Dariuz Leszczynski Dr Dieudonné Professor Belpomme T Abelin Mr Gary Melik Dr. Masayuki Tatemichi Dennis J Kucinich Prof Andrew Marino Salzburg Resolution Ohio State University Dr David Carpenter Dr Louis Slesin Dr John Dockerty Dr, Louis, Slesin Brett Moule Dr Asad Rahmani Dr Mary Redmayne Prof Trevor Marshall Dr. Henry Lai Specific Absorption Rate (SARs) Dr Don Masich Ken Karipidis Dr Michael Kundi E Lopez-Martin Dr Markus Kern Dr Olga Naidenko Professor Bruce Armstrong Michael Carlberg Dr Ronald Powell Dr Cyril Smith SAM Model Dr S Mortazavi Professor Martin Pall Alasdair Phillips Dr De-Kun Li Dr Lisa Nagy Cindy Sage Dr Igor Belyaev Dr Priyanka Bandara Dr James Suckling Vijayalaxmi and Maria Scarfi Professor Hugo Lagercrantz Frank Clegg John Cherry Dr Linda Erdreich Dr Dominique Belpomme Dr Lennart Hardell Dr Devra Davis Dr James Oschman Dr Magda Havas Dr Martin Pall Dr Maryanne Demasi Dr Jacquinta Lee Essex University Study Professor Michael Berk Dr Stephanie McCarter (MD) Dr Christopher Portier US Senate Hearing Catalyst SCENIHR Report A. Garcia Dr Gilbert de Paula (MD) ARPANSA RF Standard Mona Nilsson Prof Olle Johansson Dr Hugh Taylor WHO Associate Professor Ray Kearney OAM Dr Kenneth Foster Anne Silk Michael Dolan Dr Fernando Saravi Stewart Committee Reports John Patterson Lennart Hardell Dr Christine Aschermann Professor Anthony Miller Dr Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam IAFF Dr Jean Monroe Dr Larry Marshall Jim Phillips Frank Drews Kaspersky Lab Dr William Rea Sydney Council Phone Tower Forum Dr Ron Overberg Dr Stephen Solomon



EMR Australia © 2017. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Sitemap | Adobe Business Catalyst Sydney