.png){kind=logo}
2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-P059 Update Health Canada's Guidelines for Microwave Radiation Exposure
Submitter Name
Janis Hoffman
Ratification Vote Results: Adopted
Proposal
The GPC supports updating Health Canada’s limits of human exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation based on a transparent, rigorous systematic review of all scientific evidence on biological effects of radiofrequency/microwave radiation with public consultation, by a panel of experts independent of industry influence with no conflicts of interest.
Objective
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency/microwave radiation as a possible (Class 2B) human carcinogen in 2011. Subsequent evidence supports a classification upgrade. This policy supports updating Health Canada’s radiofrequency/microwave radiation exposure limits, Safety Code 6 (2015), based on all of the relevant scientific evidence.
Benefit
Modernizing Health Canada’s limits for human exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation emissions from wireless equipment (such as cell phones, cell network antennas, smart meters, Wi-Fi and 5G technologies) will better protect the health of all Canadians, reduce health care costs, and additionally provide some protection for the environment.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
1. The previous revision of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 for human exposure to radiofrequency/microwave radiation was flawed. Webster PC. 2015. Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). 187(9):639-640. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/187/9/639
2. More than 100 Canadian MDs and international scientists called for more protective Canadian radiofrequency/microwave guidelines/standards, to no avail. Declaration: Doctors Call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure. 2014.
3. Recent studies indicate serious health implications at radiofrequency/microwave exposures below current limits, such as cancer, sperm damage and DNA damage. Miller AB, Morgan LL, Udasin I, Davis DL. 2018. Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC
Evaluation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Monograph 102). Environ. Res. 167(673-683.DOI. 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.043)
4. Canadians for Safe Technology. 2017. References of over 200 Scientific Studies and Six (6) Reviews Reporting Potential Harm at Non-Thermal (Not Heating) Levels of Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation That Are Below Safety Code 6 (2015).
5. Urgent Appeal to the Government of Canada to Suspend 5G Rollout in Canada – supported by 24 Canadian grassroots organizations and signed by more than 18,000 Canadians. This appeal and its supplemental materials provide a good overview of the wireless radiation potential impacts on humans and the environment, substantiated with high quality scientific studies, and reasons why radiofrequency limits need to be updated.
Green Value(s)
Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Participatory Democracy, Social Justice, Respect for Diversity, Non-Violence.
Relation to Existing Policy
Add to current GPC policy G06-p16.
Amendments (3)
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
6 comments
This policy proposal is of utmost importance to Canadian citizens, as Safety Code 6 is not reflecting the independent scientific consensus regarding the biological effects of our latest, greatest environmental pollutant, the ever increasing non-natural electromagnetic radiation.
Conversation with Jamie Ker
22-03-27
Final Plenary votes in favour (74%)
Yay! Moving away from "corporate capture" of our regulatory bodies! People and the planet over corporate profit!
I can SUPPORT looking at licensed radiators (including cell towers), their safe distance and residential zoning. There are a number of locations where residential dwellings receive in excess of 10V per meter. This 10V/m is considered a good level of immunity to interference for any product. The effect on health long term with excessive intensity would be a consideration.
I DO NOT SUPPORT hair dryers, washing machines, computers, radio, wifi and TV as CAUSING HARM. This stuff is regulated to prevent radio interference.
Hydro lines and cosmic waves have been questioned. Hydro lines can deflect cosmic waves (They are charged particles not waves) with the magnetism from the hydro current which changes throughout the day. Only unresolved questions resulted from reading about that?
Cell phones are a subject in themselves and have been and are being worked to death. Look at the supporting comments to see that. A few of the alleged issues attributed to cell phones could also be attributed to estrogen like substances used by the canned food industry. Where I worked we noted that the electrical safety group had cell phones but the RF interference group did not. At one of our presentations a lawyer stood up, butted in, switched on his recorder and asked a lot of questions of the presenter. There is big money in cell phones and strong players. You can see that in any shopping mall. I think the biggest danger with cell phones is people not looking where they are walking. A girl in Montreal missed the door on the metro and fell between two wagons, horror. Riding my bicycle on a shared trail I have to call to let them know I’m there. There are problems with addiction, vision, neck and physical inactivity with over use. On the other hand the model used for safety seems to be based on a microwave oven. Using a standard phone and restricting the cell is a good idea but NOT an election winner.
Of interest transcranial stimulus with dc, ac or magnetic fields is a today thing with serious medical studies and a few nuts playing with it. Basically pushing electricity round the brain.
yeah, support the generically written proposal..... without getting into any issues alluded to within the additional supporting comments. Whatever the issue is at hand, should be based on scientific evidence, and experts independent of industry influence, with no conflicts of interest. Don't want to fall into alarmist but also think there is room for improvement and perhaps better communicating calculated risks, etc.
Risk is normally PROBABILITY x CONSEQUENCE.
Medical people use 1 to 5 for both.
Radio waves are everywhere these day with various wave lengths and levels so I'd look at 1 or possibly 2 as probability of being close to a nasty for an extended time.
Putting the Cat in the microwave oven to dry would be a 5 for both giving the poor Cat a risk factor of 25.
For the rest of us mortals 1 or 2 times a consequence based on scientific evidence, and experts independent of industry influence, with no conflicts of interest resulting in a number from 1 to 5. Good luck.
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...