Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules

Paul Christopher Webster
CMAJ June 16, 2015 187 (9) 639-640; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5061
Paul Christopher Webster
Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Re: Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC
    Posted on: 06 August 2015
  • Re:Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Mr. Frank M. Clegg
    Posted on: 22 July 2015
  • Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC
    Posted on: 22 June 2015
  • Wireless technology intrinsic to wind facilities: a cause for concern
    Carmen M. Krogh
    Posted on: 03 June 2015
  • Posted on: (6 August 2015)
    Page navigation anchor for Re: Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Re: Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    • Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC

    Mr. Clegg's response to our article is missing one very clear declaration of a conflict of interest, as evidenced by his reference list citing sources from his own organisation. That in and of itself is enough to discredit his entire response to our letter.

    I would encourage CMAJ editorship to carefully consider the credibility of the journal in continuing to unilaterally engage Mr. Clegg, Mr. Webster, and thos...

    Show More

    Mr. Clegg's response to our article is missing one very clear declaration of a conflict of interest, as evidenced by his reference list citing sources from his own organisation. That in and of itself is enough to discredit his entire response to our letter.

    I would encourage CMAJ editorship to carefully consider the credibility of the journal in continuing to unilaterally engage Mr. Clegg, Mr. Webster, and those standing on one single side of this much broader debate about the science of Wi-Fi.

    The remaining comments from our previously submitted letter still stand. While a full retraction of the previous news article would be the most responsible action, it is my hope that our original letter might be published in the print version of the journal to carefully address a more balanced view of the subject.

    Sincerely yours Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (22 July 2015)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Re:Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    • Mr. Frank M. Clegg, CEO

    I wish to respond to the comments submitted by Dr. Loh and Dr. Padhi.

    In their letter to the CMAJ they dismiss the Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and our democratic process surrounding public health. They also advocate for ignoring an emerging public health issue, rather than officially recognizing it. It was an extraordinary letter to have been written by medical doctors, whose profession ho...

    Show More

    I wish to respond to the comments submitted by Dr. Loh and Dr. Padhi.

    In their letter to the CMAJ they dismiss the Canadian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and our democratic process surrounding public health. They also advocate for ignoring an emerging public health issue, rather than officially recognizing it. It was an extraordinary letter to have been written by medical doctors, whose profession holds highest the health of its patients.

    In their letter ridiculing the science that suggests caution from our cell phones and Wi-Fi, Loh and Padhi omitted the fact that over fifty Canadian MD's signed a submission calling for Health Canada to assist Canadian physicians in becoming apprised of microwave exposure and related health problems. (1)

    Over 50 international scientists who specialize in research in the field of wireless radiation signed a declaration stating that Canada's guideline for wireless devices, (Safety Code 6) is fundamentally flawed. (2)

    The MD's and scientists state that the current levels of Safety Code 6 do not protect Canadians. They also called for Health Canada to minimize exposure to wireless radiation, especially among children.

    In testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee, Mr. Andrew Adams of Health Canada admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6. (3)

    In addition, Health Canada's "Analysis of 140 studies submitted by C4ST during Public Comment Period on Safety Code 6" lists 25 studies with "sufficient quality for inclusion in Risk Analysis" and are "in scope". Health Canada breaks them into the following categories: cancer is linked in 6 studies, brain/nervous system impacts in 13, biochemical disruption in 16 and 7 show development and/or learning behaviour impacts. (4)

    The safety code Loh and Padhi defend was published in the 1970's and has not had any major revisions since. China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have safety codes 100 times safer than Canada's. Loh and Padhi's comparing broadcast and emergency services radio signals to modern day cell phone and Wi-Fi exposure demonstrates a misunderstanding of the science. IARC and most international organizations treat exposure to this level of radiofrequency in a completely separate category.

    Loh and Padhi state that "IARC's classification of Wi-Fi as a 2B "possible carcinogen" places it in the same category as coffee, talcum powder and aloe vera." In their narrow-minded presentation of their argument, they neglected to state that lead and DDT are in the same 2B category. We now limit these harmful substances and agents in the presence of children which is one of the purposes of the Class 2B List. To minimize the risk of wireless devices is a disservice to their patients. One of the experts who testified before the Parliamentary Health committee was Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. Dr. Miller was a visiting senior scientist in the Monographs programme at IARC September 2011 - January 2012 which resulted in the 2B probable carcinogen designation. Dr. Miller has co-authored a paper which argues that the designation should, in fact, be increased to 2A, probable carcinogen. (5)

    Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland also presented to Canada's Parliamentary Health Committee. He was part of the 30+ member scientific IARC panel that reviewed the scientific literature resulting in the 2B designation. Dr. Leszczynski expressed his concern to the Committee that there has not been a proper, thorough, independent review of the scientific evidence since that 2010 IARC review. (6) Dr. Leszczynski critiqued the process of "reviewing the reviews" of published evidence vs. reading all the scientific material. Given the references provided by Loh and Padhi, it is clear they are guilty of the same lazy habit criticized by experts in this field.

    Loh and Padhi's personal attack on The CMAJ reporter Paul Webster demonstrates their lack of education on this issue. As you are aware, Mr. Webster is a world renowned reporter who has a reputation for conducting a thorough and complete review of the facts. It is my understanding that he conducted extraordinary research by today's standards of journalism and interviewed most, if not all of the eight independent experts who presented to the Committee. The four articles written by Mr. Webster over two years highlighting undisclosed conflicts and Health Canada's broken process should be commended, not ridiculed by uninformed individuals. Reporter Paul Webster should be congratulated for his coverage of this issue.

    Your reporter Mr. Webster is accused by the authors of being "biased" and irresponsible" and of conducting a "crusade". In fact your reporter is one of the only ones accurately portraying the democratic process of Parliament in Canada on this issue.

    Regarding myself, Loh and Padhi state, "In the article, Mr. Clegg insinuates that health regulators "failed to forestall public health disasters", naming "tobacco, asbestos, bisphenol A, thalidomide, DDT and urea formaldehyde. This assertion is laughable."

    I would expect more from MD's such as Loh and Padhi who have taken an oath to "do no harm" in defending Health Canada's treatment of Canadians regarding thalidomide. Thalidomide was approved by the federal government in the early sixties as a "safe" sedative for pregnant women suffering from nausea and insomnia. More than 100 babies were born in Canada with extreme disabilities, including missing limbs, internal organ damage, deafness and blindness. As reported in the CMAJ, April 21st and July 14th, 2015, Ottawa announced a $180-million compensation package for 92 eligible thalidomide survivors and issued $125,000 lump-sum cheques for immediate health needs. For Loh and Padhi to state "regulators swiftly acted to safeguard the public's health once incontrovertible evidence of harm was found" after forty years, is the real laugh.

    At the very least I would expect Drs. Loh and Padhi to curtail their profound and nearly anarchical disrespect for Canada's democratic process. To claim our government acted "swiftly" on Thalidomide betrays their basic misunderstanding of the timelines of cause, effect, and reconciliation in our country.

    For example, Canada was among the last countries in the world to stop mining and exporting asbestos. Its last mine closed in 2011. (7) It has taken decades to recover from the asbestos material installed in hundreds of schools across Canada. The pitifully slow response of our health officials caused unnecessary harm to the health and finances of thousands of Canadians.

    The first study published showing harm from tobacco was in 1939. (8) The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs was the first thorough public airing of the tobacco and health issue in Parliament since 1908. The Committee presented its final report to Parliament on December 18, 1969. The seventeen recommendations included a ban on advertising and promotion, increasing educational efforts to discourage cigarette smoking, health warnings on all cigarette packages and cartons, more help for victims of smoking, more help for smoking cessation, and gradually increasing no-smoking zones in public places. Only a few of the recommendations were effectively implemented in the 1970s. Significantly, none of the legislative recommendations were implemented for almost 20 years. (9)

    The Parliamentary Committee on Health presented its report to Parliament regarding Safety Code 6 on June 9th, 2015. Some of its twelve recommendations are very similar to the tobacco recommendations in 1969. Marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, key medical associations in Canada consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity and finally, examine measures taken and guidelines provided in other countries to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environment.

    The first evidence of harm from wireless devices was published over a decade ago. Hopefully Health Canada and other health officials will have learned from the tobacco, asbestos and thalidomide debacles. Reporting by Mr. Webster and coverage in credible publications such as the CMAJ will keep the focus on this issue so we aren't sitting here in 2025 wishing we had acted sooner.

    References

    (1). http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/medical- doctors-submission-to-health-canada-english.pdf

    (2). http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/scientific- declaration-to-health-canada-english.pdf

    (3). http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=7936469&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2 at time 1540

    (4). http://www.c4st.org/HESA2015

    (5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23664410

    (6). http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=7936469&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2 at time 1640

    (7) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-reverses-stance-on -health-risks-of-asbestos-in-landmark-shift/article25224035/

    (8). M?ller FH. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarzinom. Zeitschrift fuer Krebsforschung 1939; 49: 57-85.

    (9). http://www.smoke- free.ca/pdf_1/2009/history%20of%20tobacco%20control%20in%20canada.pdf

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (22 June 2015)
    Page navigation anchor for Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    Scientists decry irresponsible CMAJ article
    • Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH, CCFP, FRCPC
    • Other Contributors:

    Sir/Madam:

    Your recent article "Scientists decry Canada's outdated Wi-Fi safety rules" (1) represents irresponsible journalism designed to stoke fear, sullying CMAJ's reputation as Canada's medical journal of record. The print edition in which the article appears is even more ironic; your back page Digestif quotes a blog (written by one of this letter's co-authors) calling for "media, medicine and public health...

    Show More

    Sir/Madam:

    Your recent article "Scientists decry Canada's outdated Wi-Fi safety rules" (1) represents irresponsible journalism designed to stoke fear, sullying CMAJ's reputation as Canada's medical journal of record. The print edition in which the article appears is even more ironic; your back page Digestif quotes a blog (written by one of this letter's co-authors) calling for "media, medicine and public health [...] to support each other in spreading truth in science and health", (2) and the article itself insets an accusatory quote that current Wi-Fi guidelines are a "disaster for public health." (1)

    On the contrary, articles like this are themselves a disaster for Public Health, conferring undeserved attention to unfounded fears and requiring a response; one recalls the Toronto Star's Gardasil debacle. Addressing media irresponsibility detracts from the real work being done by public health on health issues with much stronger evidence.

    Your biased piece quotes five scientists (purportedly independent, but not so) (3) and an advocate (whose motivations have been heavily questioned, even in popular media) (4) against a sole regulator who is blatantly depicted as defending a supposedly "corrupt" regulatory process. Notably, the article's author has been on a seeming crusade against Wi-Fi, publishing similar pieces in CMAJ since 2013. (5-8) The article's enormous lack of balance is striking in that no mainstream physician or epidemiologic experts on Wi-Fi were interviewed.

    A responsible approach would have involved a closer examination of the science and perhaps engagement with the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health, any number of provincial public health agencies, academics with a contrarian view, and/or relevant international bodies. On the last point, one can't also help but question why the author quoted the opinion of a past secretary of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), instead of asking for comment from current IARC leadership regarding Wi-Fi's present carcinogenicity classification.

    Many of the studies cited in the article have been reviewed by experts in Canada and elsewhere, including the United States (9) and United Kingdom. (10) The worldwide consensus consistently deems these studies to be scientifically unsound. For studies finding associations, which mostly exclusively arise from Hardell et al., replicability has been difficult, and is often contradicted by many other well conducted cohort studies that to date have consistently failed to find an association. (11- 13) Additionally, bench laboratory findings by Lai et al. that occur at the microscopic level are often disputed, and more importantly, have not translated into actual health outcomes at a macro level.

    In the article, Mr. Clegg insinuates that health regulators "failed to forestall public health disasters", naming "tobacco, asbestos, bisphenol A, thalidomide, DDT and urea formaldehyde." This assertion is laughable. If anything, determining the potential carcinogenicity of an exposure involves a rigorous, scientific process that engages the entire body of evidence and all sides of an issue within the community. On these past issues named by Clegg, regulators swiftly acted to safeguard the public's health once incontrovertible evidence of harm was found. In the same vein, IARC's classification of Wi-Fi as a 2B "possible carcinogen" places it in the same category as coffee, talcum powder and aloe vera. This categorization appropriately reflects the current lack of evidence of cancer risk from these exposures.

    Most crucially for Wi-Fi, any evidence would need to be extremely compelling to overcome the biologically implausible argument that Wi-Fi (and other radiofrequency based technologies), as a non-ionizing radiation, would be able to cause DNA damage or other biological changes. The only broadly recognized biological effect observed with non-ionizing radiation exposure has been thermal effects. Specific to RF, these typically occur at exposure levels well in excess of Safety Code 6 limits. It is also worth noting that our population has been exposed without controversy to radiofrequency long before the proliferation of cellular telephones and Wi-Fi. This includes historic and ongoing exposure to broadcast, emergency services radio, and radar emissions throughout Canada.

    IARC and expert panels and academics all over the world have long stated that present literature is unclear and at present shows no consistent evidence of cancer risk associated with radiofrequency exposure, including Wi-Fi. Continuing research hopes to better inform this controversy. That your article ignored this still-open state of affairs, wilfully or otherwise, significantly diminishes its legitimacy. A more responsible journal might have rejected this article and perhaps engaged the broader scientific and medical community in reviewing all the available evidence. By proceeding with this piece, one wonders if the allure of publishing a catchy story, despite its obvious flaws, was adequately weighed against the resultant harm to CMAJ's credibility.

    References

    1. Webster PC. Scientists decry Canada's outdated Wi-Fi safety rules. CMAJ. 2015 Jun 16;187(9):639-40. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5061. Epub 2015 May 11.

    2. Canadian Medical Association. Digestif. CMAJ. 2015 Jun 16; 187(9):704

    3. Cellular Phone Task Force. Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure. 2014 July 9 [accessed 2015 June 18] Available from: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/scientific-declaration-to-health-canada- english.pdf

    4. Urback, R. Former Microsoft Canada head joins bizarre fight to protect schoolchildren from Wi-Fi. National Post [internet]. 2013 May 16. [accessed 2015 Jun 18.] Available from: http://news.nationalpost.com/full- comment/robyn-urback-former-microsoft-canada-head-joins-bizarre-fight-to- protect-schoolchildren-from-wi-fi

    5. Webster PC. Federal Wi-Fi safety report is deeply flawed, say experts. CMAJ. 2014 Jun 10;186(9):E300. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4785. Epub 2014 Apr 22.

    6. Webster PC. Second Wi-Fi panel member's conflicts are problematic. CMAJ. 2013 Sep 17;185(13):E605. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4565. Epub 2013 Aug 12.

    7. Webster P. Chair of Wi-Fi safety panel steps down. CMAJ. 2013 Sep 3;185(12):E573. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4549. Epub 2013 Jul 22.

    8. Webster PC. Federal Wi-Fi panel criticized for undisclosed conflict. CMAJ. 2013 Aug 6;185(11):E515-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4523. Epub 2013 Jun 24.

    9. Federal Communications Commission. Wireless devices and health concerns. [internet, accessed 2015 June 18.] Available from: https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns

    10. UK Health Protection Agency. Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields: Report of the Independent Advisory Group on Non- ionising Radiation. 2012 [accessed 2015 June 18.] Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333080/RCE -20_Health_Effects_RF_Electromagnetic_fields.pdf

    11. INTERPHONE Study Group. Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;35(5):453-64. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2011.05.012. Epub 2011 Aug 23.

    12. Little MP, Rajaraman P, Curtis RE, Devesa SS, Inskip PD, Check DP, Linet MS. Mobile phone use and glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States. BMJ. 2012 Mar 8;344:e1147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1147.

    13. Repacholi MH, Lerchl A, Roosli M, Sienkiewicz Z, Auvinen A, Breckenkamp J, d'Inzeo G, Elliott P, Frei P, Heinrich S, Lagroye I, Lahkola A, McCormick DL, Thomas S, Vecchia P. Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 Apr;33(3):187-206. doi: 10.1002/bem.20716. Epub 2011 Oct 21.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (3 June 2015)
    Page navigation anchor for Wireless technology intrinsic to wind facilities: a cause for concern
    Wireless technology intrinsic to wind facilities: a cause for concern
    • Carmen M. Krogh, Retired Phamacist
    • Other Contributors:

    We are responding to the CMAJ article of May 11, 2015, Scientists decry Canada's outdated Wi-Fi safety rules.

    We were invited to make a presentation to the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health associated with regarding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 and human exposure to industrial wind energy facilities and electromagnetic energy.(1)

    Very few readers are aware that industrial wind energy facili...

    Show More

    We are responding to the CMAJ article of May 11, 2015, Scientists decry Canada's outdated Wi-Fi safety rules.

    We were invited to make a presentation to the House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health associated with regarding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 and human exposure to industrial wind energy facilities and electromagnetic energy.(1)

    Very few readers are aware that industrial wind energy facilities emit EMF, ELF and RFR through their infrastructure and operations. This contribution is not considered in Health Canada's Safety Code 6. Examples of infrastructure and operational requirements are wires, electrical cables, communications networks and messaging systems, digital or analogue interfaces, GIS interfaces, remote monitoring, databases and data transfer, transformer stations, smart meters and other mechanisms that utilize WiFi. Remote data monitoring is used to assist with managing a facility including notification of a malfunction, service support, integration control systems, and data management (2) which is typically conducted 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.(3,4) For CMAJ readers, schemas and images of operational wireless networking systems for remote wind turbines are available on the Internet.(5)

    There are competing claims about industrial wind energy facilities and the effects of electromagnetic energy, ELF (extremely low frequency) fields, and radio frequency.(6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) For example, McCallum et al (2014), a study funded in part by several wind energy firms, supports the official position of Health Canada, and comments "Health Canada does not consider that any precautionary measures are needed regarding daily exposures to EMFs at ELFs. There is no conclusive evidence of any harm caused by exposures at levels found in Canadian homes and schools, including those located just outside the boundaries of power line corridors."(14)

    Regarding electromagnetic fields in general, the insurance industry indicates some concern. CFC Underwriting Limited has stated general insurance exclusions for Architects and Engineers regarding: 32. Electromagnetic Fields directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.(15) In addition, Southern California Edison in a brochure provided practical tips to reduce EMF exposure at home and at work.

    What You Can Do

    In a situation of scientific uncertainty and public concern, WHO recommended that utilities explore "very low-cost" ways to reduce EMF exposure from new or upgraded facilities.(16)

    Regarding disclosure and informed choice BioInitiative (2012) states:

    There is little labeling, and little or no informed choice. In fact there is often not even the choice to stay with safer, wired solutions, as in the case of the 'smart grid' and smart wireless utility metering, an extreme example of a failed corporate-governmental partnership strategy, ostensibly for energy conservation.(17)

    While the BioInitiative report discusses the 'smart grid' and "smart wireless utility metering" industrial wind energy and solar facilities do not appear to be specifically included. It may be that future reports will broaden the discussion.

    Regarding industrial wind energy facilities, concerns about risks to health are frequently dismissed. There are no warning labels or other forms of disclosure about the potential health risks of exposure to these energy emissions. Expectations are that more industrial wind energy and solar facilities will be approved and made operational throughout Canada. Health Canada's update of 2013 informs: "Wind turbines are becoming an increasingly common power generation option across North America and in many parts of the world." The update continues "Since the announcement of the Government of Canada's renewable energy initiatives, there has been a steady rise in the number of wind turbine installations across Canada."(18)

    Globally, there is increasing concern about risks associated with electromagnetic energy (EMF), extremely low frequency (ELF) fields, and radio frequency radiation (RFR) emissions including increased exposure of vulnerable population groups i.e., fetus, children including those with pre-existing medical conditions and special needs.(19,17) The contribution of all possible exposures merits inclusion in Safety Code 6 and that precautionary measures be invoked to prevent avoidable harm.

    The WHO states:

    ...where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof.(20)

    The Policy Interpretation Network on Children's Health and Environment comments on policy and precaution:

    Policies that may protect children's health or may minimise irreversible health effects should be implemented, and policies or measures should be applied based on the precautionary principle, in accordance with the Declaration of the WHO Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in 2004.(22)

    We recommended the investigation of Safety Code-6 be broadened to include wind energy facilities, vulnerable populations be given priority, and labelling/disclosure about risk factors be established.

    Carmen Krogh, BScPharm Beth Harrington, BMUS

    References

    1. Invitation to appear before a committee of the House of Commons Tuesday, Appearance April 28, 2015, 3:30 to 4:30 p.m., Health Canada's Safety Code 6

    2. ENERCON wind energy converters, Technology & Service http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/EN_Eng_TandS_0710.pdf

    3. General Electric (GE), GE Energy Wind Service, http://site.ge- energy.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/downloads/wind_service.pdf

    4. GE and remote turbine monitoring (10 March 2010) by Staff http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/989462/ge-remote-turbine- monitoring

    5. Images of Operational Wireless Networking Systems For Remote Wind Turbines https://www.google.ca/search?q=SCADA+wireless+wind+turbines&sa=X&espv=2&biw=1360&bih=653&tbm=isch&imgil=6JgYM_h5Z2RutM%253A%253BNQqBEVEnHcz58M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.digi.com%25252Flearningcenter%25252Fapplications%25252Fsmartenergy&source=iu&pf=m&fir=6JgYM_h5Z2RutM%253A%252CNQqBEVEnHcz58M%252C_&usg=__x8RFjrho7Ab8y7aS - 2t_6tPYkFo%3D&ved=0CDEQyjc&ei=h2YxVdS4NoieyQTQxIDgAw#imgrc=0rLRJHGfUrAhuM%253A%3BEYfjdd_ilPy47M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.moxa.com%252Fedit_pic%252FIEI_Wind_Farm_System.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.moxa.com%252Fapplications%252Fsuccess_stories_Wind_Farm_System_Excels_at_Remote_Monitoring_and_Control.htm%3B500%3B366

    6. RWE website http://www.newstatesman.com/energy-and-clean- tech/2010/06/wind-turbines-farm-build

    7. Australian Wind Energy Association, Wind Farming, Electromagnetic Radiation & Interference http://www.w- wind.com.au/downloads/CFS10Electromagnetic.pdf

    8. Krug F [1] and Lewke B [2], Electromagnetic Interference on Large Wind Turbines, Energies 2009, 2, 1118-1129; doi:10.3390/en20401118 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies [1] Siemens AG, Wittelsbacherplatz 2, 80333 Munich, Germany [2] Siemens Wind Power A/S, 7330 Brande, Denmark

    9. NEUADD-GOCH BANK WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE, AVIATION AND SHADOW FLICKER Environmental Statement: Volume 2 CHAPTER 7.0, http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/1264138/data/1273872/1/rwe- innogy/sites/wind-onshore/united-kingdom/in-development/the-environmental- statement/Chapter-7-EMI-Aviation-and-Shadow-Impacts.pdf

    10. Australian Wind Energy Association, Wind Farming, Electromagnetic Radiation & Interference http://www.w- wind.com.au/downloads/CFS10Electromagnetic.pdf

    11. Rideout K, Copes R, Bos C, Wind Turbines and Health, (January 2010), National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health

    12. Herrling K, GL Garrad Hassan, (March 14, 2011),Electromagnetic Component Standards Are Key for Wind Turbines, Renewable Energy World, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/setting-emc- standards-for-turbines

    13. Havas M and Colling D, Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 414. DOI: 0.1177/0270467611417852 http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/5/369

    14. McCallum LC, Whitfield Aslund MC, Knopper LD, Ferguson GM and Ollson CA McCallum, Environmental Health 2014, 13:9 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/13/1/9 The study was funded in part by Capital Power, Samsung and Pattern.

    15. CFC Underwriting Limited, Insurances for Architects and Engineers, February 7, 2015, GENERAL INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: Page 8.

    16. Understanding EMF, Electric and Magnetic Fields, Southern California Edison, Reviewed By: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

    17. BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org December 31, 2012

    18. Health Canada, Environmental and Workplace Health. Health, Impacts and Exposure to Sound From Wind Turbines: Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment, 2013, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/consult/_2013/wind_turbine-eoliennes/research_recherche-eng.php

    19. Press Release, (Apr. 24, 2013) Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published, BERKELEY, Calif.

    20. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO (1999). http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html

    21.Report WP7 Summary PINCHE policy recommendations Policy Interpretation Network on Children's Health and Environment (PINCHE) Policy Interpretation Network on Children's Health and Environment QLK4-2002- 02395

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 187 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 187, Issue 9
16 Jun 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules
Paul Christopher Webster
CMAJ Jun 2015, 187 (9) 639-640; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5061

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules
Paul Christopher Webster
CMAJ Jun 2015, 187 (9) 639-640; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5061
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Providing abortions to Americans could land Canadian doctors in legal trouble — without CMPA assistance
  • Troubling rise in suicides linked with common food preservative
  • Weak SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster campaign resurrects specter of health care hesistancy
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Canadian government
    • Public health

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire