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



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



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