July 11, 2014

Our Advisory Board Doctors For Safer Schools urgently requests Health Canada to re-examine Safety Code 6 as it fails to protect Canadians from the harm to human health that occurs at non-thermal levels of radio-frequency (RF) exposure.

As Health Canada scientist Dr. James McNamee said in 2013, Safety Code 6 is based only on thermal levels – preventing damage from heating, like electrical burns. RF exposure from WiFi and cell phone radiation causes significant adverse biological effects without warming human tissue.

Why Over 100,000 physicians, scientists, Health Authorities, and Many Governments are concerned:

  1. Published and peer-reviewed scientific evidence of biological harm at government-sanctioned levels of RF exposure, far below Safety Code 6
  2. Evidence of related medical symptoms, including electro-sensitivity, and cancer and brain health risks; no one is monitoring for adverse or cumulative effects
  3. Safer, non-RF emitting, secure and affordable Internet connection methods (wired cables and/or fiber optics) are widely available

Why not have students and staff in our schools, for example, be tech-savvy, connected and healthy?

Why not have proactive policies and accurate safety standards to help  people of all ages suffering ill effects and protect everyone?

Epidemiologist and DFSS Scientific Advisor, Devra Davis PhD: If the cell phone were a drug, it would be banned. Governments around the world advise precautions. Children and young people are especially vulnerable to harm due to their thinner skulls.

Canadian Surgeon, DFSS Board Member, John Barnhill MD, FRCSC: The medical, psychological and social effects of RF radiation are quite concerning. The evidence in the medical literature is in keeping with the carcinogenic capability of radiation. And exposure is without consent.

International Health Authorities Have Issued Medical Alerts:

  • The World Health Organization: After examining the scientific evidence, 31 scientists designated RF radiation a class 2B carcinogen – in the same category as lead, automotive exhaust, and DDT.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics: Children are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. It is essential that any new standard be based on protecting the most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded.
    [Members: 62,000 physicians.]
  • American Academy of Environmental Medicine: Adverse health effects from wireless RF radiation – learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches – are well documented in the scientific literature. It is better to exercise caution and substitute with a safe wired connection.

DFSS Board Member, Integrative Child Psychiatrist, Victoria Dunckley MDBy inducing changes in brain chemistry, blood flow, hormones and circadian rhythms, screen-time on digital devices can trigger mood, sleep, cognitive, and behavioral issues in children. Furthermore, screen-time is a leading factor in the childhood obesity epidemic, and health concerns from wireless radiation exist as well.

DFSS Medical Director, Board-Certified Cardiologist, Stephen Sinatra MD, FACC: WiFi and mobile phone radiation is harmful to human health. The heart is vulnerable; cardiac symptoms may be connected. Electro-sensitivity is an emerging medical condition that most physicians have not heard about.

Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, Martin Blank PhDSafety standards for electro-magnetic radiation, including RF, are inaccurate. This is the new asbestos and it took regulators 100 years for action on it – see the chart below. [Dr. Blank has published over 200 papers on his research in this field.]

WiFi in schools is a serious concern: We have seen first hand how Canadian school boards facing the difficult decision about exposing students and staff to RF radiation rely heavily on Health Canada’s leadership and Safety Code 6. Their response: “Levels of radiation exposure in our classrooms fall well within Safety Code 6.”

If, as many highly qualified experts report, these thermal-based standards put the public at risk from non-thermal radiation levels, surely it is time to follow the lead of many health authorities around the world: adopt the precautionary principle and undertake a comprehensive review of Safety Code 6.

Health Minister Rona Ambrose is correct in her statement, “Canada’s limits are similar to those of the United States, Australia, the European Union and Japan.” This does not mean the standards are accurate or protecting citizens. Several other countries including Russia, China, Italy and Switzerland have much more stringent levels.

It has been 35 years since this public health hazard was first described in the literature. How much longer will Health Canada wait until taking action to protect Canadians at risk? 

With scientists and physicians around the world raising a medical alert about the inaccuracy and irrelevance of existing RF safety standards, including Safety Code 6, and calling for non-thermal standards based on biological effects, we urge Health Canada to go back and review the scientific evidence apparently ignored last year by the Royal Society of Canada Panel.