Federal Wi-Fi safety report is deeply flawed, say experts
An expert scientist says the Royal Society of Canada panel report "ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen."
A new review of Health Canada's safety standards for radiofrequency devices, including Wi-Fi and
cellphones, is deeply flawed due to the authors' conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, say two
scientists. The Royal Society of Canada's (RSC) Expert Panel Report on the Review of Safety
Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields endorses current safety standards while
calling for more research. The RSC invited the two scientists to peer review the report.
The RSC's eight-member panel "actively blinded themselves to vital evidence," says Martin Blank,
an expert on the effects of electromagnetic radiation and special lecturer at the Columbia University
Medical Center in New York City. "The panel's position on maintaining the current standards is so
fixed that it leads them to conclusions one would never expect from policy officials in the field of
health," Blank added in an interview. "I am almost certain that the reluctance of the panel to be
guided by biological evidence reflects a lack of expertise in cell biology."
Dr. Anthony B. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of
Public Health, was likewise critical. The panel included members with "major links to the
telecommunications industry," says Miller. "This is a conflicted panel, with insufficient expertise
in epidemiology. It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen."
Miller flagged concerns about the panel last summer after a CMAJ article revealed that the RSC
panel's original chair, Daniel Krewski, failed to disclose to the society that he had received a
$126 000 contract in 2008–2009 from Industry Canada. Krewski was replaced as panel chair.
Amidst concerns about links between the telecommunication industry and John Moulder, professor
and director of radiation biology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
two members of the original panel stepped down and were also replaced. Moulder remained on the
panel.
These changes to the panel remained unsatisfactory, says Miller. "It is unfortunate that the
Royal Society failed to amend the membership of the panel as requested by some of us."
After reviewing the panel's final report, Miller and Blank now say that the RSC, which was
paid $100 000 by Health Canada to establish the review panel, failed in its obligation to the public.
"This is actually a failure of the panel to fulfil its primary function — to protect the health of the
population," says Blank. "This failure is occurring in an environment with increasing exposure
to a wide range of non-ionizing EMF [electromagnetic frequencies], including ELF [extremely
low-frequency]. To do the job right, the panel should be reconstituted to include members having
the expertise needed to evaluate the biological research and to formulate safety standards that take
into account the biological indicators of EMF danger levels."
Instead of outsourcing the safety review to the RSC, which is not subject to government
accountability and transparency rules, Miller suggests Health Canada should conduct the safety
review internally, using traditional expert advisory panel review procedures which are far more
accountable. "That is a process that is far better."
Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), an Oakville, Ontario-based advocacy
group that campaigns against the dangers of exposure to unsafe levels of wireless radiation from
technology, says the RSC's panel was "an expensive exercise that was corrupted by industry and
so is a waste of taxpayer dollars."
Russel MacDonald, officer on expert panels at the RSC in Ottawa, Ont., did not respond to an
interview request.
Sarah Lauer, a media officer with Health Canada, says the department is reviewing the panel's
April 1 report and "will consider the RSC's recommendations, as well as all feedback received
during the upcoming public consultation on Safety Code 6." The revised Code is expected to be
published in the fall of 2014. The RSC, she added, "notes that there are no established adverse
health effects at exposure levels below the proposed limits.
DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-4785
— Paul Christopher Webster, Toronto, Ont.
cellphones, is deeply flawed due to the authors' conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, say two
scientists. The Royal Society of Canada's (RSC) Expert Panel Report on the Review of Safety
Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields endorses current safety standards while
calling for more research. The RSC invited the two scientists to peer review the report.
The RSC's eight-member panel "actively blinded themselves to vital evidence," says Martin Blank,
an expert on the effects of electromagnetic radiation and special lecturer at the Columbia University
Medical Center in New York City. "The panel's position on maintaining the current standards is so
fixed that it leads them to conclusions one would never expect from policy officials in the field of
health," Blank added in an interview. "I am almost certain that the reluctance of the panel to be
guided by biological evidence reflects a lack of expertise in cell biology."
Dr. Anthony B. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of
Public Health, was likewise critical. The panel included members with "major links to the
telecommunications industry," says Miller. "This is a conflicted panel, with insufficient expertise
in epidemiology. It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen."
Miller flagged concerns about the panel last summer after a CMAJ article revealed that the RSC
panel's original chair, Daniel Krewski, failed to disclose to the society that he had received a
$126 000 contract in 2008–2009 from Industry Canada. Krewski was replaced as panel chair.
Amidst concerns about links between the telecommunication industry and John Moulder, professor
and director of radiation biology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
two members of the original panel stepped down and were also replaced. Moulder remained on the
panel.
These changes to the panel remained unsatisfactory, says Miller. "It is unfortunate that the
Royal Society failed to amend the membership of the panel as requested by some of us."
After reviewing the panel's final report, Miller and Blank now say that the RSC, which was
paid $100 000 by Health Canada to establish the review panel, failed in its obligation to the public.
"This is actually a failure of the panel to fulfil its primary function — to protect the health of the
population," says Blank. "This failure is occurring in an environment with increasing exposure
to a wide range of non-ionizing EMF [electromagnetic frequencies], including ELF [extremely
low-frequency]. To do the job right, the panel should be reconstituted to include members having
the expertise needed to evaluate the biological research and to formulate safety standards that take
into account the biological indicators of EMF danger levels."
Instead of outsourcing the safety review to the RSC, which is not subject to government
accountability and transparency rules, Miller suggests Health Canada should conduct the safety
review internally, using traditional expert advisory panel review procedures which are far more
accountable. "That is a process that is far better."
Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), an Oakville, Ontario-based advocacy
group that campaigns against the dangers of exposure to unsafe levels of wireless radiation from
technology, says the RSC's panel was "an expensive exercise that was corrupted by industry and
so is a waste of taxpayer dollars."
Russel MacDonald, officer on expert panels at the RSC in Ottawa, Ont., did not respond to an
interview request.
Sarah Lauer, a media officer with Health Canada, says the department is reviewing the panel's
April 1 report and "will consider the RSC's recommendations, as well as all feedback received
during the upcoming public consultation on Safety Code 6." The revised Code is expected to be
published in the fall of 2014. The RSC, she added, "notes that there are no established adverse
health effects at exposure levels below the proposed limits.
DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-4785
— Paul Christopher Webster, Toronto, Ont.
