This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Exposure to electromagnetic radiation

Petition

866729 Township Road 10
R.R.#3
Bright, Ontario
N0J 1B0
Tel. 519 463 6251

The Auditor General of Canada
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Attention: Petitions
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

30 March 2007

Dear Auditor General,

Please accept this letter as a petition under the Auditor General Act. I am submitting this petition because I am concerned about the harmful effects of electro magnetic radiation (EMR) to myself and also to the Canadian population at large. I feel that our government is partially responsible in causing a serious environmental problem and is also failing to warn and protect the populace from this very real danger.

As background to my petition, here are some relevant facts:

My Situation. When I retired from the police service in a major metropolitan city in November 2003, my wife and I moved to a house that we had purchased in the Ontario countryside between Kitchener and Woodstock. Within a few weeks, I started to feel sick with many symptoms including ringing in my ears, the inability to sleep properly, constant headaches, nausea, heaviness in my chest, swollen glands, fatigue, racing heart, body aches, irritability, depression, and an inability to think clearly. Within a year, I also developed prostate cancer. I suspected the problem was related to electricity, but did not know why or how this could be so.

After a great deal of time and research and the employment of expert consultants, I discovered that my illness is caused by electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from wireless and microwave antennas in the area. This situation is further complicated by ground current electricity from the electrical distribution system, carrying high frequency pollution on to our property and into our home. It should be noted that we do not live close to any antenna masts or to any major hydro transmission lines. The symptoms from which I suffer are known as microwave or radiofrequency sickness, a well-researched illness that was first noticed in persons exposed to radiofrequencies and radar during the Second World War.

I found that our home is acting as an antenna or as an amplifier of radiofrequencies and microwave electromagnetic radiation. The level of radiation inside our house has been measured to be hundreds of times higher than that outside of the house. Our house is about one hundred years old, but it has been modernized and the electrical system is new and has been inspected. My overexposure to very dangerous levels of EMR has caused me to be Electro Hyper Sensitive (EHS), a condition well researched in Sweden, recognized by the World Health Organization, and suffered by many people in countries where exposure to electro magnetic radiation is high. Scientific research and evidence shows that electro magnetic radiation is causing sickness, cancer and death to a great many people exposed to strong sources of it. For more than two years, we have been unable to live in our home because of the strong and dangerous levels of EMR. Often when I return to our house for even a short visit, I suffer various symptoms and need to leave because of the adverse effects. When other sufferers of EHS have visited my home, they, too, have felt very sick because of the strong EMR exposure levels. During the last twenty-six months, we have lived in alternate housing, which has caused us great inconvenience and considerable expense.

For about three years, I have tried to get assistance from many sources, including provincial and federal ministries. I have been shocked and disappointed at their lack of understanding and their unwillingness to help. In particular, the federal Ministry of Health and Ministry of Industry have failed me. These two ministries control the regulations for exposure standards of radiofrequency and microwave radiation from antennas. The standards that they recommend as being "safe" are at dangerously high levels, and their standards are amongst the worst in the world. Strong evidence indicates that these dangerous exposure levels are seriously harming many Canadians.

Because of the adverse health effects and the difficulties that my wife and I have suffered from microwave and radio frequency exposure, I request that the responsible authorities answer the following questions:

1. Which antennas and transmission facilities are causing the electro magnetic pollution that is affecting our home?
2. Who owns and operates them?
3. At what frequencies and powers are they operating?
4. Are the antennas operating within federal rules and guidelines?
5. Previously, the Minister of Industry has refused to comprehensively measure EMR levels at our home. What explanation can the Minister and other responsible authorities provide for the very dangerous levels of pulsed microwave radiation and radio frequencies that we can measure and quantify in our home?
6. We have a right to enjoy our property, untainted by pollution and free from ensuing sickness. Will the responsible authorities commit to take immediate action to stop all excessive sources of electro magnetic radiation that are presently affecting our home and causing ill health?
7. If the answer to question six is no, will the responsible authorities provide us with clear documentation to show that our home is completely safe from electro magnetic radiation and that the government will be fully liable for any ill health caused by EMR of future purchasers of our property?
8. What plan has been developed to provide recourse for citizens, such as ourselves, who have properties where they are harmed by electro magnetic radiation?
9. Who owns and operates the antenna mast just east of Highway 59 and south of Oxford County Road 3, and the antenna mast five kilometers south of the above mentioned mast, close to Highway 59 and Oxford County Road 33? Normally, during the day, the power level of these antennas is fairly consistent. Recently, I have noticed that in the early morning hours, between one a.m. and five a.m., the power fluctuates by pulsing strongly every two seconds. The signal often doubles in intensity at each peak. Evidence from other antenna locations suggests that constant pulsing seriously affects sleep and causes many ill health effects. Why is this strong pulsing happening? Can it be stopped? Can the transmission facilities be turned off during the normal sleeping hours or can the signal intensity be greatly reduced?

Electro Magnetic Radiation (EMR) from many different sources is probably the worst pollution problem ever faced by Canada. It has recently become the most widespread and, potentially, the most deadly form of pollution. Although it is invisible and most people cannot detect EMR, it affects the vast majority of Canadians. It is the single biggest threat to Canadian lives, our families, the health care system, and the future of our country. Yet, our government is treating the EMR health effects to Canadians as insignificant when compared to the implementation of new, modern communications systems. The government is allowing the biggest health experiment ever, to be conducted on its own citizens. They are risking the health and lives of all Canadians.

Having viewed documentation from senior employees at Health Canada and Industry Canada, I find it easy to understand why our government is making such a huge mistake. Health Canada has adopted the approach of balancing scientific research indicating no harm to health with other research that shows significant harm to health, and subsequently concluding that there is no danger. Canadians do not expect this type of dangerously flawed reasoning from senior government officials responsible for their health and safety. Health Canada is placing Canadians in grave jeopardy.

Scientific studies and evidence that indicate no harm from electro magnetic radiation do not have the potential to adversely affect Canadian health. They just show that certain scientists were unable to find certain results by certain tests. Negative results, therefore, can safely be ignored without endangering the public. On the other hand, scientific research and evidence that indicates brain cancer, DNA breaks, changes to skin, changes to blood composition, stress to the body's nervous system, many other cancers, damage to eyesight, damage to hearing, sleeping difficulties, headaches and many more adverse health effects, should be of major concern to Health Canada and must not be ignored. Scientific research and evidence showing severe danger to the health of people, animals, birds, and insects exposed to EMR are all available to Health Canada. This information is being hidden from the public. Warnings are not being provided about the potential dangers of EMR exposure. I request that the responsible authorities answer these questions related to EMR:

10. The attached descriptions of five epidemiological studies show a great increase in cancer and many other symptoms of ill health in persons living near to cell phone antenna masts. What is the government doing to limit the exposure of living things to these masts, particularly in the areas of schools, houses, and public property?
11. The Lookout Mountain, Colorado, research results (attached*) show significant changes to blood of persons living near to several antennas. Persons living in the area report significant health problems and many instances of cancer. What health warnings has Health Canada provided to Canadians who live close to antennas producing strong amounts of EMR? What research projects have been implemented in areas near to strong sources of EMR to determine the extent of health harm that is being caused?
12. German researchers W. Loscher and G. Kas found farm animals living close to a high frequency antenna mast were badly harmed by radiation from the antennas (document attached*). Will Agriculture Canada provide warnings to farmers operating near to antenna masts? What research have they conducted into the dangers of EMR to animal health? What research has taken place regarding the health of farm families living close to strong sources of EMR from antennas?
13. Have the responsible authorities reviewed evidence from countries around the world of cancer clusters being found near to cell phone transmitter masts? If so, what have they done with that information? What warnings have been provided to the public? What research projects have been implemented to prove or disprove that harm is being caused to people living near to antennas?
14. Will the responsible authorities collect and examine all research and evidence that shows damage to health from EMR? Will they engage in serious discussion with researchers that have found evidence of EMR health harm and with concerned citizens about those dangers?
15. Will the responsible authorities act responsibly and quickly to minimize dangers from electro magnetic radiation, to protect humans, animals, birds, insects, and the environment?
16. Will the Minister of Health produce a package of the most important research documents and evidence about EMR exposure causing cancer and harm to health? Will the Minister provide it to the elected Members of Parliament so that they can be fully informed of the dangers?
17. Will the Minister of Health make the same package available to members of the news media and the public?
18. Will the Canadian Government sponsor and promote a conference about the dangers of EMR, and bring researchers from around the world who have discovered serious harm being caused by EMR?
19. Will the responsible authorities develop a strategy to solve the dangers from EMR pollution?
20. Why have the responsible authorities failed to use the "precautionary principle", allowing antennas to be placed near to homes, schools and hospitals?
21. Citizens are concerned about their exposure to EMR. Are continuous records kept of all antenna emissions and how do citizens access those records?

Ground Current Electricity (also known as stray voltage and tingle voltage) Ground current electricity is probably the second worst pollution problem in Canada, likely only eclipsed by electro magnetic radiation. Ground current electricity is caused by poorly designed and outdated electrical distribution systems that cannot return neutral current on the wires. Electricity carrying dangerous high frequencies is then allowed to return to substations via the ground. Although electricity is regulated provincially, the provinces have failed to ensure electrical distribution systems are safe. Ground current electricity pollution is now a nation-wide pollution problem that needs Federal Government direction to ensure that the situation is corrected. I request that the responsible authorities answer the following questions regarding ground current electricity:

22. Will the Minister of Health determine the extent of harm that is being caused to human health and the costs to the heath care system as a result of ground current electricity?
23. Will the Minister of Agriculture determine the extent of harm that ground current electricity is causing to the livestock industry and the resultant costs to Canadian farming?
24. Will the responsible authorities warn Canadians about the dangers of ground current electricity, provide information about health symptoms and advise citizens how they can avoid the dangers?
25. Will the responsible authorities develop a national strategy to stop ground current pollution throughout Canada?
26. From the measurements that have been taken at our home, it appears that EMR from antennas in the area are interacting with the electrical distribution system. What studies have been conducted to discover if an electrical system can act as a giant antenna, collecting dangerous high frequencies and bringing them to properties in dangerously high levels?
27. Can high frequency pollution be filtered from the electrical distribution system, so that it does not harm property owners and electricity users? Is this being done anywhere at present? If so, where?
28. Will the Minister of the Environment and other responsible authorities launch an investigation of previously reported ground current pollution problems that utility companies have not rectified? Will the authorities commence appropriate court proceedings against utilities that have failed to rectify a known pollution problem?
29. Will the Minister of the Environment and other responsible authorities launch an investigation or public inquiry to examine why provincial government departments have failed to ensure that ground current electricity pollution is stopped, and known ground current pollution problems corrected? Will the authorities ascertain whether negligence was involved and whether charges are justified against those involved?

Electro Hyper Sensitivity (EHS). In countries where health studies have been undertaken, researchers have discovered that a large percentage of the population suffers serious adverse affects from exposure to electro magnetic fields, electrical fields and electro magnetic radiation. A recent research document suggests that half of the population may become EHS by the year 2015. If the levels of electro magnetic pollution continue to increase, life in Canada may change forever. I request that the responsible authorities answer the following questions regarding EHS:

30. What studies have been done to determine the level of EHS and allergies to electrical fields and EMR in Canada?
31. Have the responsible authorities examined the links between EMR and autism, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, and obesity? What are the responsible authorities doing about these links?
32. Will Health Canada conduct a public education program to advise all Canadians about the symptoms and health dangers of exposure to Electro Magnetic Fields, Electrical Fields, and EMR?
33. What research have the responsible authorities conducted into ways to minimize the effects of EMR, shield those that suffer from EHS, and provide accommodation for those unable to live in their homes?
34. Will the responsible authorities implement lower EMR exposure limits (change Canada Safety Code Six) to levels lower than those found to harm human, animal, bird, and insect health?
35. Will Health Canada educate doctors and health care workers about the causes and effects of EMR and develop effective advice and treatment for patients?
36. EHS is recognized by the World Health Organization. In Sweden it is recognized as a disability. Will the responsible authorities recognize EHS as a disability in Canada?
37. Will the responsible authorities provide specialized and effective medical treatment for the harm caused by exposure to electro magnetic radiation?
38. Are the responsible authorities willing to discuss and implement ways to prevent Canadians from becoming EHS?
39. It is difficult for EHS sufferers to find a place where they are not currently subject to EMR. Are the responsible authorities planning to keep designated areas within cities and the country clear of EMR pollution so that people can live safely and without exposure to radiation?
40. EHS sufferers have a constant fear that new EMR sources, such as a cell phone masts, may be erected nearby without warning. What processes have been developed to ensure that the rights and safety of all individuals are respected and that their voices are heard whenever a new antenna or source of EMR is proposed?

The questions that this petition raises are pertinent to both myself, who, through no fault of my own, has been robbed of health, happiness, and property, and to the nation at large. My situation is one of a growing number of similar situations. If this trend of serious health harm to Canadians is not addressed, it will have a dramatic effect upon life in Canada, as we know it.

Looking to the future, if the current situation is not corrected, there is a strong danger that our health care system will be overwhelmed and crushed by the needs of persons suffering from the effects of electro magnetic radiation. Or, conversely, the wireless industry could be decimated when the real dangers of EMR are fully realized by the populace at large. In this case, the considerable expense of changing to safer technologies, such as fibre optic, may be forced upon an industry already crippled by litigation expenses. The ripple effect from these changes could be huge, even significantly affecting the stock market. A proactive approach to ensure both the safety of technology and the health of the populace would preserve Canada's health and prosperity and establish this country as a world leader in health, technology, and environmental matters. Thoughtful planning and an inclusive vision for a safe communications system for Canadians need to occur today.

I trust that the responsible authorities will give this letter and the issues it describes serious and diligent consideration, so that all Canadians can look forward to a much safer environment and a healthier future, in all respects.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Martin Weatherall]

Martin Weatherall
weather@golden.net

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

31 July 2007

Mr. Martin Weatherall
R.R. 3, 866729 Township Road 10
Bright, Ontario
N0J 1B0

Dear Sir:

Thank you for environmental petition (No. 197) on the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and ground current. On 18 April 2007, the ministers of Health, Industry, and the Environment, and I received your petition from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

In your petition, you ask questions, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, about the effects of electro magnetic radiation on humans, animals, and the environment. I enclose the answers to the three questions, which fall under the jurisdictions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (questions 10 and 12) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (question 23). The other questions in your petition will be submitted, as applicable, to the federal departments concerned.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me.

Sincerely,

[original signed by Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Chuck Strahl

Encl.

RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
TO ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION 197 FILED
BY A CITIZEN (M. WEATHERALL) UNDER THE
AUDITOR GENERAL ACT (RECEIVED APRIL 18, 2007):

The Harmful Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Ground Current Electricity

August 16, 2007

Table of Contents

On April 3, 2007, a citizen from south-western Ontario, Martin Weatherall (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) filed Petition 197 (hereinafter referred to as the Petition) with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act. The Petition contains questions regarding concerns about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans, animals and the environment. Further questions are related to ground current electricity and the condition of electrohypersensitivity. The petition contains a total of 40 questions that fall under the mandates of several Ministries. Each of the relevant federal departments and agencies will be responding individually. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) have provided a combined response to three questions. CFIA has provided a response to questions 10 and 12; AAFC has provided a response to question 23.

The Petition was sent by the Office of the Auditor General to the petitioned Ministers on April 18, 2007. For this reason, the 120 days allowed for the Government of Canada to respond to the Petition, as expressed in the Auditor General Act, began on April 18, 2007.

The Petition process set out in Section 22 of the Auditor General Act is a means by which Canadians can express their views while seeking more information on matters of federal policy in the context of the environment and sustainable development. The Government of Canada wishes to assure the Petitioner and other Canadians that responsible stewardship of human health, animal health, biodiversity, and the environment is of priority to the Government of Canada.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development forwarded the Petition to the following Ministers for response:

Minister of the Environment
Minister of Industry
Minister of Health
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The response provided by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food reflects the roles and responsibilities of the CFIA and AAFC in the context of this matter.

Responses to Petitioner's Questions

Question 10: The attached descriptions of five epidemiological studies show a great increase in cancer and many other symptoms of ill health in persons living near to cell phone antenna masts. What is the government doing to limit the exposure of living things to these masts, particularly in the areas of schools, houses, and public property?

Question 12: German researchers W. Loscher and G. Kas found farm animals living close to a high frequency antenna mast were badly harmed by radiation from the antennas (document attached). Will Agriculture Canada provide warnings to farmers operating near to antenna masts? What research have they conducted into the dangers of EMR to animal health? What research has taken place regarding the health of farm families living close to strong sources of EMR from antennas?

Response to Questions 10 and 12:

The CFIA is the largest science-based regulatory agency in Canada and is responsible for delivery of all federally mandated food inspection, plant protection and animal health programs, and consumer protection as it relates to food. The CFIA regularly relies on input and advice from its own and other scientific experts when developing, reviewing and improving regulations, international standards and policies and programs for inspecting, testing and responding to emergencies.

The Agency strives to protect Canadians from preventable health risks related to food as well as those associated with animal diseases that are transmissible to humans.

With regard to Question 10, the descriptions of five epidemiological studies provided in Attachment 1 note that the "effects of masts on people" were examined. Since there are no animal health considerations being raised in the studies, the CFIA has no comment on the broader question of government action regarding "exposure of living things to these masts."

The CFIA is responsible for administrating and/or enforcing 13 federal statutes and their respective regulations, including the Health of Animals Act and its associated Health of Animals Regulations respecting diseases and toxic substances that may affect animals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons, and also, respecting the protection of animals.

To afford additional protection to animals, regulations made under the authority of the Health of Animals Act prohibit the transportation of any animal under inhumane conditions and state that carriers cannot load, transport or unload animals in a way that would cause injury or undue suffering. There are also requirements for the provision of food, water and rest at specific intervals; protection from adverse weather; adequate ventilation; use of proper containers and transport vehicles; and segregation of incompatible animals. Regulations and operational policies under the Meat Inspection Act set standards for the humane handling and slaughter of food animals in federally registered abattoirs. These standards cover the unloading and movement of animals in slaughter facilities, the segregation and handling of sick or injured animals and the humane slaughter of animals. CFIA inspectors are located at each federally registered abattoir in Canada to monitor animal handling and stunning procedures as part of their duties. In Canada, the provinces have the primary responsibility for the protection of the welfare of animals on-farm and for humane slaughter at provincial abattoirs.

With regard to its disease control and protection mandate, the CFIA's responsibilities extend to certain diseases which must be reported to the World Organisation for Animal Health, commonly known as the OIE. These are diseases transmissible to humans or which are of significant importance to animal health and the Canadian economy.

These Reportable, Immediately Notifiable, or Annually Notifiable Diseases include, for example, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), anaplasmosis, rabies, and fowl cholera, among others. Since EMR effects are not listed as a disease by the OIE, the exposure of living things to cell phone antenna masts (Question 10) and any potential research into the effects of EMR on animal health (Question 12) do not fall under the CFIA's regulatory framework for disease control in the Health of Animals Act and Regulations.

In terms of further research in this area, The Royal Society of Canada, which is a national body of distinguished Canadian scientists and scholars who evaluate and advise on scientific issues for the benefit of Canada, has prepared a report. An Expert Panel was convened at the request of the Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada, and produced a report entitled A Review of the Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunication Devices (1999). This report noted that scientific studies performed to date suggest that exposure to low intensity non-thermal RF fields does not impair the health of humans or animals.

Question 23: Will the Minister of Agriculture determine the extent of harm that ground current electricity is causing to the livestock industry and the resultant costs to Canadian farming?

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) provides information, research and technology, and policies and programs to achieve security of the food system, health of the environment and innovation for growth. Achieving this mandate involves supporting agricultural productivity and trade, stabilizing farm incomes, encouraging research and development and being responsible for the inspection and regulation of animals and plant-life forms.

The effect of ground current electricity on the livestock industry is currently not being studied by AAFC. In a report entitled "Les effets des champs électriques et magnétiques sur la santé et la productivité du bétail" (Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields on Livestock Health and Productivity) published by Hydro-Québec in 1999, it concluded that livestock do not have problems with the electromagnetic field or stray voltage (i.e., ground current electricity). This report looked at different American studies on this topic. The report makes a clear difference between EMR and stray voltage. On a farm, stray voltage would result from two sources, the farm electrical system and the electricity transportation system (high voltage lines). In most cases, the problem could be solved with an electrician that would inspect the farm electrical installations. The report indicates the absence of evidence to support any real effect on livestock.

The topic of ground current pollution has been addressed at the provincial level in Ontario. Information on stray voltage problems in livestock production can be found at the following website: (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/strayvol.htm). This site indicates that "further understanding of tolerance levels resulting from more recent trials indicate there is little cause for concern in the 0.5-2.0 volt range commonly found between surfaces contacted by livestock. Higher levels may be detrimental in wet environments and should be resolved in a low cost and effective manner."

Ground current pollution has also been addressed through Bill 143, entitled Ground Current Pollution Act, 2006 in Ontario. This Bill relates to shocks that animals might receive as a result of inadequate wiring and grounding. The purpose of this Bill is to:

• define objectionable current flow on ground rods, commonly known as stray voltage, and to prohibit electricity providers from causing occurrences of objectionable current flow.
• establish a time frame for electricity providers to respond to complaints about objectionable current flow, to require an investigation of complaints and, if an investigation shows that an electricity provider is responsible for an occurrence of objectionable current flow, to require the provider to remedy the problem in a timely manner.
• create an offence and penalty for failing to remedy the problem that gives rise to a complaint in a timely manner.
• provide that the Ministry of Government Services develop and implement a plan to eliminate objectionable current flow in Ontario.

This Bill has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy in the legislative process.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

31 August 2007

Mr. Martin Weatherall
866729 Township Road 10
R.R. 3
Bright, Ontario
N0J 1B0

Dear Mr. Weatherall:

I am pleased to respond to your Environmental Petition No. 197, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the effects of electromagnetic radiation on human health and the environment. The petition was received in Environment Canada on April 18, 2007.

Your petition addresses a number of questions to various federal departments, some of which are specifically addressed to Environment Canada. My response to questions 15, 28 and 29 is enclosed.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of Environment]

John Baird, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

Q. 15 Will the responsible authorities act responsibly and quickly to minimize dangers from electro magnetic radiation, to protect humans, animals, birds, insects, and the environment?

At the present time, Environment Canada has no regulations in place to protect the environment from the effects of electro magnetic radiation.

The Department administers subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of substances harmful to fish into Canadian fishery waters. Subsection 36(3) reads as follows:

" … no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water

With regard to wildlife, the responsibilities of the federal government include protection and management of migratory birds as well as nationally significant wildlife habitat. Other responsibilities are endangered species, control of international trade in endangered species, research on wildlife issues of national importance, and international wildlife treaties and issues.

By and large, provincial and territorial wildlife agencies are responsible for all other wildlife matters. These include conservation and management of wildlife populations and habitat within their borders, issuing licences and permits for fishing, game hunting, and trapping, guidelines for safe angling and trapping ,and outfitting policies.

Q. 28 Will the Minister of the Environment and other responsible authorities launch an investigation of previously reported ground current pollution problems that utility companies have not rectified? Will the authorities commence appropriate court proceedings against utilities that have failed to rectify a known pollution problem?

As mentioned above, the Department has no regulations in place covering the effects of electro magnetic field radiation on humans and their environment. This is a matter that falls more appropriately under the responsibility of the provinces and territories. It would, therefore be inappropriate for Environment Canada to launch an investigation of potential ground current pollution or to take any other action in this regard.

Q. 29 Will the Minister of the Environment and other responsible authorities launch an investigation or public enquiry to examine why provincial government departments have failed to ensure that ground current electricity pollution is stopped, and known ground current pollution problems corrected? Will the authorities ascertain whether negligence was involved and whether charges are justified against those involved?

Given the answer to the above question, Environment Canada will not be undertaking such action.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

10 August 2007

Mr. Martin Weatherall
866729 Township Road 10
R.R. #3
Bright, Ontario
NOJ 1BO

Dear Mr. Weatherall:

Thank you for your environmental petition 197 dated March 30, 2007, directed to the Ministers of Health, Environment, Industry and Agriculture and Agri-Food. In your Petition, you posed questions under the Auditor General Act with respect to the effects of electro magnetic radiation on Canadian population.

I am pleased to provide you with the attached Health Canada response to your Petition. I understand that the Ministers of Environment, Industry and Agriculture and Agri-Food have addressed each question relating to their respective mandate in separate responses.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter, and hope you will find the information useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Tony Clement, Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Tony Clement

Enclosure

Question 10. What is the government doing to limit the exposure of living things to (cell phone antenna) masts, particularly in areas of schools, houses, and public property?

Answer 10: Health Canada (formerly the Department of Health and Welfare) established limits of human exposure to radiofrequency fields in 1979. Since then, these limits have been periodically updated, including some minor changes to maximum allowable exposure limits. The latest version was published in 1999 in a document entitled Safety Code 6—Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Prior to its publication, Safety Code 6 was reviewed by federal and provincial health authorities, as well as by a number of experts on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on human health. In addition, at the request of Health Canada, the Royal Society of Canada assembled an expert panel on radiofrequency (RF) fields to conduct an independent review of the guidelines for safe exposure limits set out in the Code. Their report is available on the Society's Web site at: www.rsc.ca/index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=120

The RSC report concluded that the exposure limits set out in Safety Code 6 are adequate for the protection of the general public from adverse health effects. Subsequent to this review, several of the original panel members have undertaken two additional reviews each time looking at the literature published in consecutive two year periods. In both cases, there was no new information published that caused them to change their original assessment. Their follow-up reports are also available at the same internet address above.

Health Canada does not license, approve or monitor emissions from cell phone antennas as these activities fall under the responsibility of the Department of Industry (Industry Canada). However, Industry Canada in their licensing procedures require that operators ensure that all such antennas do not produce RF emissions in excess of the maximal exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6, in areas accessible to the general public. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human exposure to RF fields below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6 produce any adverse human health effects.

Question 11 What health warnings has Health Canada provided to Canadians who live close to antennas producing strong amounts of EMR? What research projects have been implemented in areas near to strong sources of EMR to determine the extent of health harm that is caused?

Answer 11: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human exposure to RF fields below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6 produce any adverse human health effects. As such, no health warnings have been issued as they are not scientifically justifiable.

Health Canada has been an active international partner in the global effort to understand and elucidate the potential health risks of EMR. Health Canada and its scientists have participated in the WHO International EMF project, through attendance and organization of international fora and meetings and through the generation of new knowledge through scientific research of topics highlighted by the WHO EMF project as high priority. Please find attached a summary of these studies:

ELF Studies done at Health Canada
McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Chauhan V, Gajda GB, Lemay E, Thansandote A. Evaluating DNA damage in rodent brain after acute 60 Hz magnetic-field exposure. Radiat Res. 2005 Dec;164(6):791-7.

Vijayalaxmi, McNamee JP, Scarfi MR. Comments on: "DNA strand breaks" by Diem et al. [Mutat. Res. 583 (2005) 178-183] and Ivancsits et al. [Mutat. Res. 583 (2005) 184-188]. Mutat Res. 2006 Jan 31;603(1):104-6.

McLean JR, Thansandote A, McNamee JP, Tryphonas L, Lecuyer D, Gajda G. A 60 Hz magnetic field does not affect the incidence of squamous cell carcinomas in SENCAR mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Feb;24(2):75-81.

McNamee JP, Bellier PV, McLean JR, Marro L, Gajda GB, Thansandote A. DNA damage and apoptosis in the immature mouse cerebellum after acute exposure to a 1 mT, 60 Hz magnetic field. Mutat Res. 2002 Jan 15;513(1-2):121-33.

McLean JR, Thansandote A, Lecuyer D, Goddard M. The effect of 60-Hz magnetic fields on co-promotion of chemically induced skin tumors on SENCAR mice: a discussion of three studies. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Jan;105(1):94-6.

McLean J, Thansandote A, Lecuyer D, Goddard M, Tryphonas L, Scaiano JC, Johnson F. A 60-Hz magnetic field increases the incidence of squamous cell carcinomas in mice previously exposed to chemical carcinogens. Cancer Lett. 1995 Jun 8;92(2):121-5.

Scaiano JC, Mohtat N, Cozens FL, McLean J, Thansandote A. Application of the radical pair mechanism to free radicals in organized systems: can the effects of 60 Hz be predicted from studies under static fields? Bioelectromagnetics. 1994;15(6):549-54.

Stuchly MA, Lecuyer DW, McLean J. Cancer promotion in a mouse-skin model by a 60-Hz magnetic field: I. Experimental design and exposure system. Bioelectromagnetics. 1991;12(5):261-71.

McLean JR, Stuchly MA, Mitchel RE, Wilkinson D, Yang H, Goddard M, Lecuyer DW, Schunk M, Callary E, Morrison D. Cancer promotion in a mouse-skin model by a 60-Hz magnetic field: II. Tumor development and immune response. Bioelectromagnetics. 1991;12(5):273-87.

Stuchly MA, McLean JR, Burnett R, Goddard M, Lecuyer DW, Mitchel RE. Modification of tumor promotion in the mouse skin by exposure to an alternating magnetic field. Cancer Lett. 1992 Jul 31;65(1):1-7.

Stuchly MA, Lecuyer DW. Exposure to electromagnetic fields in arc welding. Health Phys. 1989 Mar;56(3):297-302.

Stuchly MA, Lecuyer DW. Survey of static magnetic fields around magnetic resonance imaging devices. Health Phys. 1987 Sep;53(3):321-4.

Stuchly MA, Lecuyer DW. Induction heating and operator exposure to electromagnetic fields.Health Phys. 1985 Nov;49(5):693-700.

RF Studies done at Health Canada
Chauhan V, Mariampillai A, Kutzner BC, Wilkins RC, Ferrarotto C, Bellier PV, Marro L, Gajda GB, Lemay E, Thansandote A, McNamee JP. Evaluating the biological effects of intermittent 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency fields in a series of human-derived cell lines. Radiat Res. 2007 167(1):87-93.

Qutob SS, Chauhan V, Bellier P, Yauk C, Douglas G, Williams A, Berndt L, Gajda G, Thansandote A and McNamee JP. Microarray gene expression profiling of a human glioblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to 1.9 GHz pulse modulated radiofrequency fields. Radiation Research (2006, In Press).

Chauhan V, Mariampillai A, Bellier PV, Qutob SS, Gajda GB, Lemay E, Thansandote A and McNamee JP. Gene expression analysis of a human lymphoblastoma cell line exposed in vitro to an intermittant 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field. Radiation Research (2006, In Press).

Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP. Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 2005 Mar;81(3):189-203.

McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Gajda GB, Lavallee BF, Marro L, Lemay E, Thansandote A. No evidence for genotoxic effects from 24 h exposure of human leukocytes to 1.9 GHz radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. 2003 May;159(5):693-7.

Gajda GB, McNamee JP, Thansandote A, Boonpanyarak S, Lemay E, Bellier PV. Cylindrical waveguide applicator for in vitro exposure of cell culture samples to 1.9-GHz radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002 Dec;23(8):592-8.

McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Gajda GB, Lavallee BF, Lemay EP, Marro L, Thansandote A. DNA damage in human leukocytes after acute in vitro exposure to a 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency field. Radiat Res. 2002 Oct;158(4):534-7.

McNamee JP, Bellier PV, Gajda GB, Miller SM, Lemay EP, Lavallee BF, Marro L, Thansandote A. DNA damage and micronucleus induction in human leukocytes after acute in vitro exposure to a 1.9 GHz continuous-wave radiofrequency field. Radiat Res. 2002 Oct;158(4):523-33.

Thansandote A, Gajda GB, Lecuyer DW. Radiofrequency radiation in five Vancouver schools: exposure standards not exceeded. CMAJ. 1999 May 4;160(9):1311-2.

Stuchly MA, Kozlowski JA, Symons S, Lecuyer DW. Measurements of contact currents in radiofrequency fields. Health Phys. 1991 Apr;60(4):547-57.

Stuchly MA, Repacholi MH, Lecuyer DW, Mann RD. Radiofrequency emissions from video display terminals. Health Phys. 1983 Sep;45(3):772-5.

Stuchly MA, Lecuyer DW, Mann RD. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic emissions from video display terminals and other devices. Health Phys. 1983 Sep;45(3):713-22.

Stuchly MA, Repacholi MH, Lecuyer DW. Operator exposure to radiofrequency fields near a hyperthermia device. Health Phys. 1983 Jul;45(1):101-7.

Question 13. Have responsible authorities reviewed evidence from countries around the world of cancer clusters being found near to cell phone transmitter masts? If so, what have they done with the information? What warnings have been provided to the public? What research projects have been implemented to prove or disprove that harm is being caused to people living near to antennas?

Answer 13: Yes. Health Canada staff review the scientific literature related to evidence of adverse health effects from RF fields. This information is included with all other information for consideration of the health risk assessment of RF radiation. At present, there is no convincing scientific evidence that human exposure to RF fields below the limits outlined in Safety Code 6 produce any adverse human health effects (including cancer clusters). As such, no health warnings have been issued as they are not scientifically justifiable.

Question 14. Will the responsible authorities collect and examine all research and evidence that shows damage to health from EMF? Will they engage in serious discussion with researchers that have found evidence of EMR health harm and with concerned citizens about those dangers?

Answer 14: Yes. This has been an ongoing activity at Health Canada for over 25 years.

Question 15. Will the responsible authorities act responsibly and quickly to minimize dangers from electromagnetic radiation, to protect humans, animals, birds, insects, and the environment?

Answer 15: Yes. If an adverse effect is identified that proves to be scientifically verified, then we will act to ensure that any danger to the environment or Canadian citizens will be minimized.

Question 16. Will the Minister of Health produce a package of the most important research documents and evidence about EMR exposure causing cancer and harm to health?

Question 17. Will the Minister of Health make the same package available to members of the news media and the public?

Answer to Questions 16 and 17:

As part of Health Canada's mandate to protect the health of the Canadian population, it publishes the exposure guideline, Safety Code 6—Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 Ghz. It is available on the internet at the address: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index_e.html

In developing this guideline, Health Canada staff conducted extensive reviews of the research literature spanning the last 40 years. All aspects were reviewed, including possible effects related to cancer. It is important to note that this safety code, and all other codes and guidelines produced by this Department, rely on an understanding and assessment of the body of science, not selected studies that support a preconceived conclusion. This is the only approach that is justifiable and defensible in dealing with matters related to health and safety of the Canadian public.

Safety Code 6 was last revised in 1999. Prior to its publication, Safety Code 6 was reviewed by federal and provincial health authorities, as well as by a number of experts on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on human health. In addition, at the request of Health Canada, the Royal Society of Canada assembled an expert panel on radiofrequency (RF) fields to conduct an independent review of the guidelines for safe exposure limits set out in the Code. Their report is available on the Society's Web site at: www.rsc.ca/index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=120

It concluded that the exposure limits set out in Safety Code 6 are adequate for the protection of the general public from adverse health effects. Subsequent to this review, several of the original panel members have undertaken two additional reviews each time looking at the literature published in consecutive two year periods. In both cases, there was no new information published that caused them to change their original assessment. Their follow-up reports are also available at the same internet address above. In addition to these documents, HC staff participated in a specific review of the evidence for a link between EMR and cancer (Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, McNamee JP. Mobile phones, mobile phone base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 2005 Mar;81(3):189-203) which is available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714033046~db=all~order=page

The conclusion of this review and many other similar reviews was that the evidence for EMR as a causal or contributing factor for cancer at environmentally experienced levels was insufficient. Isolated reports in the literature of positive findings were probably the result of problems in experimental design. Taken together, these documents constitute a bibliography of the most important research information on electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and health, including cancer. They are all openly available on the internet to interested parties including news media, public and elected Members of Parliament.

Question 18. Will the Canadian Government sponsor and promote a conference about the dangers of EMR, and bring researchers from around the world who have discovered serious harm being caused by EMR?

Answer 18: The Canadian Government actively participates in the International Electromagnetic Fields Project, coordinated by the World Health Organization. (The goals of this project are to verify reported biological effects from electromagnetic fields and to characterize any associated health risks to humans. More information about this project, in addition to many useful fact sheets, is available on the World Health Organization's Web site at (www.who.int/peh-emf). In addition to the regular meetings held by WHO, which are open to all interested parties, several other conferences and symposia are held each year by organizations such as Bioelectromagnetics Society, Union of Radio Scientists International Commission K and the European Bioelectromagnetics Society. All of these conferences and symposia deal with the important subject of EMR and health and are usually attended by researchers from around the world who have an opportunity to present their information.

Several of these symposia have been partially funded through contributions made by the Canadian Government. Although there is usually a technical program committee to maintain high standards for the quality of the research presented, there is no prior selection of presentations based on the outcome of the research. The process allows all controversial and contradictory information to be presented and allows participants to freely express their opinions about the safety or dangers of EMR exposure. These symposia are good examples of the way science works, an open and frank evaluation of the data followed by critical review.

Health Canada, as a science-based organization, is committed to the continuation of the scientific process which includes critical peer-review of all research findings. It is felt that the interests of the Canadian public are best served by following this course and supporting the scientific activities of national and international scientific bodies.

Question19. Will the responsible authorities develop a strategy to solve the dangers from EMR pollution?

Answer 19: Health Canada (HC), through the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) and responsibilities under the Treasury Board (TB) Standards and the Canada Labour Code (CLC), maintains the Electromagnetics Division of the Clinical and Consumer Radiation Protection Bureau. This division, staffed by 4 scientists, one technologist and one technical inspector oversees the compliance activities related to the RED Act, TB Standards and CLC as well as maintaining three Safety Code guidelines related to EMR exposure. In addition, the staff participates in intramural and extramural EMR health effects research, national and international standards committees, scientific organizations, scientific journal peer-reviews, various environmental assessment review processes and consultation with other government departments and non-governmental organizations.

The Electromagnetics Division acts as principal health advisor to Industry Canada (IC), Spectrum Management Branch through a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Under the terms set out in the MOU, HC and IC staff meet regularly to discuss issues concerning IC's Radio Regulation compliance activities as they relate to EMR exposure. Any new information on health effects due to EMR exposure or newly introduced technologies licensed by IC are exchanged between the departments and necessary actions initiated. This strategy of continual information exchange allows both departments to keep abreast of any new information that would necessitate possible regulatory intervention should the need arise.

Question 20. Why have the responsible authorities failed to use the "precautionary principle", allowing antennas to be placed near to homes, schools and hospitals?

Answer 20: The overwhelming majority of results of research carried out over the span of the last four decades suggest no risk while only a small minority suggest some risk. On the basis of a balance of risk, this would indicate minor or low-cost/no-cost measures as commensurate actions. Coupled with this is the observation that of the small proportion of animal and cell-culture studies that show some risk, most were carried out at exposure levels close to Safety Code 6 and ICNIRP guidelines. On the other hand, typical exposures from base station antennae are orders of magnitude below this.

The precautionary principle is an approach to risk management which recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm. While the principle's definition tends to vary from one statute to the next or from one jurisdiction to another, its three basic tenets remain constant: there is (1) a need for a decision, (2) a risk of serious or irreversible harm and (3) a lack of full scientific certainty. Guided by science, the principle is one consideration in the appraisal of appropriate risk management measures.

In view of this, the Government deems that the existing measures, including continued research, are sufficient and appropriate in this matter at this time. These measures are currently being undertaken by both Health Canada and Industry Canada. Even with precaution in mind, the science does not support lowering the exposure limits in Safety Code 6 or amending the Radiocommunication Regulations to prohibit placement of antennas in certain areas. This is not to say that such changes are not possible in the future if new health risk information were to arise. Indeed, as science evolves, risks are re-assessed and may call for stronger precautionary measures.

Question 22. Will the Minister of Health determine the extent of harm that is being caused to human health and the costs to the heath care system as a result of ground current electricity?

Question 24. Will the responsible authorities warn Canadians about the dangers of ground current electricity, provide information about health symptoms and advise citizens how they can avoid the dangers?

Answer to questions 22 and 24:

The issue of ground current electricity or earth current as it is sometimes known is related to stray voltage and originally arose in the context of dairy farms. The flow of neutral current in the earth, which gives rise to voltages between metal objects and the ground were implicated in the economic losses incurred by dairy farmers due to the effects of small electrical shocks experienced by their cows. The phenomenon has been extensively studied and documented for farm animals. It is essentially a direct effect of contact with an electrical conductor (albeit the earth) and does not involve radiation. Humans are somewhat less at risk from the effects of stray voltage than cows owing to their higher resistance to current flow. However, electric current flow and electrocution in humans has also been studied extensively and a large bibliography on this subject exists. A useful reference in this regard is the book: Applied Bioelectricity: From Electrical Stimulation to Electropathology by J. Patrick Reilly, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1998. This 560 page book contains approximately 1000 references to published work on the subject of electrical interactions with the human body. /exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-3912990-7804804?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=J.%20Patrick%20Reill

In terms of responsibilities for ground current, each province has its own electrical safety organization that develops standards and procedures for preventing electrical contact hazards. For instance, Ontario has the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA), which is responsible for public electrical safety in Ontario as designated by Ontario Regulation 89/99, and is responsible for enforcing the Electricity Act and Regulations, including the Ontario Electrical Safety Code, Ontario Regulation 164/99. Health Canada, while mandated with protecting the health of Canadians, does not carry out activities in the area of electrical safety in order to avoid duplication of effort. This work is carried out by each of the provincial electrical safety organizations.

As an example of measures being taken by the responsible provincial authorities, on October 19, 2006, the Ground Current Pollution Act (Bill 143-2006) unanimously passed second reading in the Ontario Legislature. The Bill defines "objectionable current," establishes a time frame for utility companies to respond to and remedy complaints, and provides for the development and implementation of a plan to eliminate current that goes through the ground instead of through the neutral wire.

Question 30. What studies have been done to determine the level of EHS and allergies to electrical fields and EMR in Canada?

Question 31. Have the responsible authorities examined the links between EMR and autism, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, and obesity? What are the responsible authorities doing about these links?

Question 33. What research have the responsible authorities conducted into ways to minimize the effects of EMR, shield those that suffer from EHS, and provide accommodation for those unable to live in their homes?

Answer to Questions 30, 31 and 33:

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is reputed to be a perceived sensitivity to EMF by certain individuals who have a variety of non-specific physical and/or psychological symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, digestive disturbances and dermatological symptoms. These symptoms usually appear at exposure levels tolerated by the general public. The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome. While EHS symptoms may be real, and can vary widely in their severity, there are some indications that the symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions, as well as, stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.

Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. The fields that electromagnetically hypersensitive individuals consider to be the cause of their symptoms vary considerably, but they are invariably far below recommended exposure limits, and very far below field levels that are known to produce adverse health effects in unaffected humans.

To date, experimental and epidemiological studies throughout the world have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints. The experimental studies strongly suggest that EHS symptoms are not related to actual exposures to electric or magnetic fields, and that electromagnetically hypersensitive individuals are no better than non-hypersensitive individuals in detecting the presence of EMF. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms to EMF exposure.

Health Canada aims to reduce the health and safety risks associated with different types of radiation. Health Canada's scientists continually monitor scientific developments on reported biological effects associated with exposure to electric and magnetic fields, conduct research, develop exposure guidelines. Health Canada, as a science-based organization, is committed to the continuation of the scientific process which includes critical peer-review of all research findings. It is felt that the interests of the Canadian public are best served by following this course and supporting the scientific activities of national and international scientific bodies.

As an active participant in the International EMF Project, Health Canada has hosted, been involved and/or participated in a number of WHO international conferences on EMF.

Independent researchers from around the world, including Health Canada scientists, also participate at several other conferences and symposia held by organizations such as the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), the European BioElectromagnetics Association (EBEA) and the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) where studies and policies with respect to EMF-health issues are discussed.

Question 32. Will Health Canada conduct a public education program to advise all Canadians about the symptoms and health dangers of exposure to Electro Magnetic Fields, Electrical Fields, and EMR?

Question 35. Will Health Canada educate doctors and health care workers about the causes and effects of EMR and develop effective advice and treatment for patients?

Question 37. Will the responsible authorities provide specialized and effective medical treatment for the harm caused by exposure to electro magnetic radiation?

Answer to Questions 32, 35 and 37:

Health Canada routinely conducts public education programs by providing information to Canadians to help them make informed decisions about their health. The Department publishes resources on a variety of health related topics for the Canadian public, researchers and health professionals. Risk communication information, such as scientific reports and publications are published and distributed to increase awareness and educate Canadians about environmental and workplace health issues that have been found to affect their health.

To date, experimental and epidemiological studies have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints reported by EHS individuals. The reported symptoms are generally non-specific and no consistent set of symptoms has been identified. It is for these reasons and the fact that there is no scientific basis to link electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms to EMF exposure that there is any need for a public education program to be implemented at this time.

Several EMF publications are available on the Health Canada website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/electri-magnet/index_e.html

Question 34: Will the responsible authorities implement lower EMR exposure limits (change Canada Safety Code Six) to levels lower than those found to harm human, animal, bird, and insect health?

Answer 34: Safety Code 6 is a science-based guideline document periodically updated to reflect the current understanding of this important subject. Prior to the most recent revision, in October 1999, the draft Code was distributed to concerned citizen groups, federal-provincial-territorial health authorities, and a number of experts in the area of EMR on human health (both in Canada and the U.S.) and an Expert Panel of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC). Composed of recognized experts in various related fields of study, the panel conducted an independent review of the guidelines proposed for Safety Code 6. Their report, which is available directly from the RSC or their internet site, (www.rsc.ca//index.php?lang_id=1&page_id=120) concluded that the exposure limits set out in Safety Code 6 were an adequate reflection of the published science and provided the necessary protection of the general public from adverse health effects. Subsequent to the completion of this review, the panel members have undertaken two follow-up reviews of the peer-reviewed literature published in the intervening years and concluded that no new information has arisen that would cause them to alter their initial conclusions.

While there are reports of biological effects at exposure levels below the limits specified in Safety Code 6, these effects have not been established as leading to adverse health effects and thus do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure to EMR.

Question 36: EHS is recognized by the World Health Organization. In Sweden it is recognized as a disability. Will the responsible authorities recognize EHS as a disability in Canada?

Answer 36: WHO, through its International EMF Project, is identifying research needs and co-ordinating a world-wide program of EMF studies to allow a better understanding of any health risk associated with EMF exposure. Particular emphasis is placed on possible health consequences of low-level EMF.

EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual and can vary widely in their severity. The World Health Organization states that the collection of EHS symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome or single medical problem. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.

With regard to your statement that In Sweden EHS is recognized as a disability, Mr. Gert Anger, Project Manager of the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority has advised Health Canada that the Swedish Social Welfare Agency offers financial assistance to groups of needy individuals. The Agency feels that EHS individuals are such a group, but this does not mean that the Agency has recognized electromagnetic fields as the cause of their illness. Although, EHS individuals prefer to interpret their illness to be classified as electrosensitive, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSI) states that EHS is a health problem and not a radiation problem.

Question 38. Are the responsible authorities willing to discuss and implement ways to prevent Canadians from becoming EHS?

Question 39. It is difficult for EHS sufferers to find a place where they are not currently subject to EMR. Are the responsible authorities planning to keep designated areas within cities and the country clear of EMR pollution so that people can live safely and without exposure to radiation?

Question 40. EHS sufferers have a constant fear that new EMR sources, such as a cell phone masts, may be erected nearby without warning. What processes have been developed to ensure that the rights and safety of all individuals are respected and that their voices are heard whenever a new antenna or source of EMR is proposed?

Answer to Questions 38, 39 and 40:

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a reputed perceived sensitivity to EMF by certain individuals who have a variety of non-specific physical and/or psychological symptoms. To date, experimental and epidemiological studies throughout the world have failed to provide clear support for a causal relationship between electromagnetic fields and complaints. The experimental studies strongly suggest that EHS symptoms are not related to actual exposures to electric or magnetic fields, and that electromagnetically hypersensitive individuals are no better than non-hypersensitive individuals in detecting the presence of EMF. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms to EMF exposure.

In Canada, devices that emit radiofrequency fields (RF) are regulated by Industry Canada These include cellular phones, cellular phone antennas (base stations), radio and TV transmitters, and radars. Industry Canada conducts compliance assessments on these devices to ensure that they operate in accordance with a radiofrequency exposure standard known as Health Canada's Safety Code 6. Industry Canada also addresses concerns regarding the construction of radiocommunication antenna towers and related facilities. It recognizes that the local community should have an opportunity to influence the location of these towers. As a result, the Industry Canada requires proponents of antenna structures to consult with land-use authorities about their proposals. Issues relating to these proposals may be raised, discussed and dealt with through formal presentations, public meetings and/or direct representation from citizens.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Industry Canada

14 August 2007

Mr. Martin Weatherall
866729 Township Road 10
R.R. #3
Bright, Ontario
N0J 1B0

Dear Mr. Weatherall:

I am writing to provide you with Industry Canada's response to your Environmental Petition No. 197, dated March 30, 2007, concerning the effects of radio frequencies to yourself as well as to the Canadian population at large. Your petition was forwarded to me by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am pleased to respond to your questions, as numbered in your petition, that fall under Industry Canada's responsibility.

Question 1: Which antennas and transmission facilities are causing the electro magnetic pollution that is affecting our home?

Question 2: Who owns and operates them?

Question 3: At what frequencies and powers are they operating?

Question 21: Citizens are concerned about their exposure to EMR. Are continuous records kept of all antenna emissions and how do citizens access those records?

Industry Canada is responsible for the management of the radio frequency spectrum including the orderly development and efficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada. Radiocommunication is carried out over radio frequencies ranging from 9 kHz to 3000 GHz and is propagated through space without an artificial guide such as a wire. Radio antennas and facilities, which are essential components of radiocommunication, are owned and operated by a wide variety of authorized users, including both licensed and licence-exempt. Across Canada, there is an enormous number of different types of radiocommunication installations each operating with its own technical characteristics including frequency and power.

Examples of licensed users include: police; fire and ambulance; cellular telephone networks; air traffic control and navigation; broadcasting and, businesses requiring radio despatch mobile communications.

Industry Canada's Spectrum Management on-line services web site provides public access to information on licensed radio frequency use within Canada. The various search tools available provide access to radio frequency information, including frequency and power, from Industry Canada's Assignment and Licensing System database. Please refer to the following web address for further details on how to access this information: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf05303e.html.

In addition to licensed devices, there are other devices that use the radio frequency spectrum but operate on a licence-exempt basis. This includes such devices as: garage door openers; remote baby monitors; microwave ovens for cooking; remote control devices; wireless alarms; industrial, scientific and medical devices; amateur radios; General Radio Service radios and, Family Radio Service walkie talkies to name a few. Industry Canada does not keep a record of licence-exempt devices which are, for the most part, low-power consumer devices as there is no radio frequency spectrum management benefit of doing so.

Question 4: Are the antennas operating within federal rules and guidelines?

Health Canada has established guidelines for exposure to radio frequency fields in its publication: Safety Code 6—"Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz." While the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6 rests with Health Canada, Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose of protecting the general public.

Industry Canada, through its approval processes and conditions of authorization as well as certification standards, ensures that all radiocommunication installations and devices are installed and operated in a manner that complies with the general public requirements set out in Safety Code 6.

Question 5: Previously, the Minister of Industry has refused to comprehensively measure EMR levels at our home. What explanation can the Minister and other responsible authorities provide for the very dangerous levels of pulsed microwave radiation and radio frequencies that we can measure and quantify in our home?

In his letter dated September 29, 2006, Mr. Doug Prentice, A/Director of Spectrum for Industry Canada, Ontario Region, informed you that there are no transmitters in close proximity to your house. This was confirmed in your March 30, 2007 correspondence to the Auditor General of Canada. Industry Canada visited your home and confirmed that there are no nearby facilities that would result in radio frequency field levels that would exceed Safety Code 6 limits. Further, the levels in your home from distant transmitters would not approach Safety Code 6 limits as their intensity reduces very significantly as distance from the antenna increases.

Question 6: We have a right to enjoy our property, untainted by pollution and free from ensuing sickness. Will the responsible authorities commit to take immediate action to stop all excessive sources of electro magnetic radiation that are presently affecting our home and causing ill health?

Health Canada has established its Safety Code 6 radio frequency exposure guideline, which Industry Canada has adopted for the purpose of protecting the general public. Industry Canada requires all radiocommunication installations to comply with Safety Code 6 on an ongoing basis so as to ensure that the general public is protected. When it deems it appropriate, Industry Canada will require operators of radio apparatus to take immediate corrective measures to ensure compliance with Safety Code 6, such as, reducing transmitter power, relocating an antenna, restricting public access. Given that there are no nearby radio facilities that would result in radio frequency fields exceeding Safety Code 6 at your home, such corrective action would not be required.

Question 7: If the answer to question six is no, will the responsible authorities provide us with clear documentation to show that our home is completely safe from electro magnetic radiation and that the government will be fully liable for any ill health caused by EMR of future purchasers of our property?

Experience gained over the years from our past field measurements has demonstrated that, for the vast majority of radiocommunication installations, the radiofrequency field levels are a very small fraction of the Safety Code 6 limits. Based on this experience, and that there are no authorized radiocommunication installations in proximity to your location as evidenced in Annex 1, Industry Canada is confident that the radiofrequency levels near your property would not exceed Safety Code 6 limits for public exposure.

Question 8: What plan has been developed to provide recourse for citizens, such as ourselves, who have properties where they are harmed by electro magnetic radiation?

Industry Canada requires that Safety Code 6 be respected at all times in order to ensure that the general public is protected. Should Health Canada decide to change Safety Code 6, Industry Canada would require the changes to be respected in order to ensure the continued protection of the general public.

Question 9: Who owns and operates the antenna mast just east of Highway 59 and south of Oxford County Road 3, and the antenna mast five kilometers south of the above mentioned mast, close to Highway 59 and Oxford County Road 33? Normally, during the day, the power level of these antennas is fairly consistent. Recently, I have noticed that in the early morning hours, between one a.m. and five a.m., the power fluctuates by pulsing strongly every two seconds. The signal often doubles in intensity at each peak. Evidence from other antenna locations suggests that constant pulsing seriously affects sleep and causes many ill health effects. Why is this strong pulsing happening? Can it be stopped? Can the transmission facilities be turned off during the normal sleeping hours or can the signal intensity be greatly reduced.

Rogers Wireless Inc. owns and operates a radiocommunication installation in the immediate area east of Highway 59 along Oxford County Road 33, the second location that you question. Our review of area road maps for the site given as "just east of Highway 59 and south of Oxford County Road 3", the first location that you question, leaves some uncertainty regarding the location of these roads in proximity to your residence. However, based on the additional geographic information provided, in a northerly direction from the intersection of Highway 59 and Oxford Road 33, our database indicates several licensed radiocommunication installations, one of which is owned by Bell Mobility Inc.

Regarding your statement of power fluctuations causing heath effects, Industry Canada cannot comment on this effect as it is beyond our expertise in matters related to the orderly development of the radio frequency spectrum. Industry Canada would not require the operator of a radiocommunication facility to stop transmitting, or greatly reduce the signal intensity, unless the Department was confident that the requirements of operator's authorization were not being met.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and trust this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Maxime Bernier, Minister of Industry]

Maxime Bernier

c.c.: Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Annex 1

Radiocommunication Installations