Subject: Cell-phone enquiry in Canada......
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 102517 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
......Here is an interesting development in Canada.....Does anyone
know about "industry ties or 'tilts'" of any of the scientists on this
panel????.....guru......
Press Release
4 August 1998
For immediate distribution
Ottawa--Acting in response to a request from Health Canada, the
President of the Royal Society of Canada has appointed an Expert Panel
on potential health risks associated with radio-frequency fields. The
panel's report will be completed and submitted to Health Canada in
March, 1999.
The Expert Panel will review the range of risk factors that have been
associated with the radio-frequency fields used for wireless
telecommunications technologies, especially the newer PCS networks,
including hand-held devices, transmitter towers, and roof-top
antennas. These risk factors include what are called "thermal
effects," "athermal effects," and "non-thermal effects." The Panel
will also examine and comment on the adequacy of Health Canada's
"Safety Code 6," which regulates the exposure of Canadians to
radio-frequency fields, in the light of the latest scientific studies
on the range of risk factors indicated above.
Members of the Royal Society of Canada's panel were selected by the
Society's Committee on Expert Panels. Names of the Expert Panel
members and the terms of reference for their report follow.
The Society welcomes comments from interested parties in Canada on
issues relevant to this panel's report. All comments received will be
forwarded to the panel members. Please send your comments in writing
by mail or facsimile to the following address no later than September
15, 1998:
Expert Panel on Radio-frequency Fields
The Royal Society of Canada
225 Metcalfe Street, Suite 308
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1P9
Fax: 613-991-6996
-30-
For further information contact:
William Leiss, FRSC, Chair
RSC Committee on Expert Panels
Tel: 613-991-6999; Fax: 613-991-6996
E-mail: leissw@post.queensu.ca
- or -
Sandy Jackson
RSC Administrative Coordinator
Tel: 613-991-6999; Fax: 613-991-6996
E-mail: sjackson@rsc.ca
List of Panel Members:
Craig V. Byus, Ph.D., Professor of Biomedical Sciences and
Biochemistry, University of California at Riverside
Barry W. Glickman, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Director of the
Centre for Environmental Health, University of Victoria, British
Columbia
Daniel Krewski, Ph.D., Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Ottawa, ON (Chair)
W. Gregory Lotz, Ph.D., Chief, Physical Agents Effects Branch,
Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science, National Institute for
Occupational Health and Safety [NIOSH], Cincinnati, Ohio
Rosemonde Mandeville, M.D., Ph.D., President, Biophage Inc., Montréal,
QC
Mary L. McBride, M.Sc., Cancer Control Research Unit, British Columbia
Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC
Frank S. Prato, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Diagnostic Radiology
and Nuclear Medicine, and Department of Medical Biophysics, University
of Western Ontario and Co-Director, Bioelectromagnetics Western,
London, ON
Donald F. Weaver, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Departments of
Chemistry and Medicine (Division of Neurology), Queen's University,
Kingston, ON
***
Terms of Reference for the Expert Panel on Potential Health Risks of
Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices (July
1998)
Background:
Since the introduction of cellular telecommunication services in the
early 1980s, Canadians have become increasingly concerned about the
potential adverse health effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields emitted
from hand-held devices, such as wireless telephones, as well as their
associated transmitter towers and roof-top antennas. Technology is
rapidly changing such that there are now personal communication
services (PCS) in the 2 GHz frequency range, in addition to the 800 -
900 MHz band which is allocated for cellular phone services. New
technologies such as mobile data, wireless local area network (WLAN)
in the 5 GHz range, specialized mobile radio (SMR)/enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), wireless local loop and low earth
orbit (LEO) mobile satellite service are forthcoming. It is
anticipated that public concern over the safety of RF transmitting
devices will continue to grow as new and existing wireless
telecommunication technologies come into widespread use or until there
is conclusive evidence that significant health effects from RF
exposure do not exist.
In November 1988, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
former Department of Communications and the former Department of
National Health and Welfare was signed. This MOU, which was reaffirmed
by Industry Canada and Health Canada in 1998, defines the
responsibilities of both Departments in regard to wireless
telecommunications and safe electromagnetic environments in Canada. In
essence, Health Canada's (HC) role is to protect the health of
Canadians and to act as the principal health advisor to Industry
Canada (IC) on all health matters relating to radiation hazards.
Through its licensing procedures, IC requires that operators of
wireless communication devices and other radio transmitters ensure
that the radiofrequency fields produced by their equipment do not
exceed the safe exposure limits contained in HC Safety Code 6 - Limits
of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields at Frequencies from 10 kHz - 300
GHz. In order to ensure the safety of Canadians, Health Canada is
continually assessing the potential for human health risks from RF
field exposure from the emerging wireless telecommunication devices
and their associated transmitter towers.
Purpose of the Expert Panel:
Historically, HC's Safety Code 6 guidelines have established RF
exposure limits at levels which are much lower than that required to
elicit "thermal" biological effects. However, many citizens are now
concerned that RF fields may elicit "athermal" and/or "non-thermal"
biological effects at RF exposure levels below the exposure limits
reflected in Safety Code 6. The purpose of the expert panel is to
address the public concern over the adequacy of HC's Safety Code 6,
with regard to potential health risks associated with RF field
exposure from existing and emerging wireless telecommunication
devices.
Terminology:
In order to facilitate a dialogue of understanding between the
scientific literature and the general public, it is important that
terms commonly used when discussing RF field biological effects are
clearly defined. Scientific terminology for the occurrence of possible
biological effects from RF fields are often categorized into three
groups, defined as follows:
"Thermal effects": Thermal biological effects are defined as occurring
when the temperature of the organism/tissue studied rises several
degrees despite thermoregulatory control.
"Athermal effects": Athermal biological effects are defined as
occurring when thermoregulation is challenged but the temperature of
the organism/tissue studied is maintained at its nominal value.
"Non-thermal effects": Non-thermal biological effects are defined as
occurring when thermoregulation is not challenged and the temperature
is not significantly affected in the organism/tissue studied.
When discussing possible biological effects from RF fields, the
general public often does not differentiate between athermal and
non-thermal effects. Thus, the definition of a "non-thermal" effect
listed above is too restrictive and might be better defined as:
"Non-thermal effects": Non-thermal biological effects are defined as
occurring when the temperature of the organism/tissue studied is not
significantly affected.
For the sake of clarity, we have used the latter definition of
"non-thermal" effects when drafting the terms of reference questions
listed below.
Terms of Reference:
A) General Questions:
With regard to Health Canada's Safety Code 6, in particular the draft
version revised as of July 1998:
1) What are the biological effects and/or potential adverse human
health effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency fields
emitted from wireless telecommunication devices such as wireless
phones and base-station transmitters?
2) Do the provisions of Safety Code 6 protect both RF workers and the
general population from the "thermal" effects associated with the
exposure to radiofrequency fields?
B) With regard to the issue of "non-thermal" effects of radiofrequency
fields:
3) What "non-thermal" biological effects and/or potential adverse
health effects have been reported in the literature?
4) Is there evidence that such effects, if any, could be greater for
children or other population sub-groups?
5) What research is needed to better understand the potential health
consequences for "non-thermal" effects?
C) Implications of the foregoing for Safety Code 6:
6) What are the implications for Safety Code 6 of the panel's
scientific review of the currently available data on biological
effects and the potential adverse health effects of exposure to
radiofrequency fields? In particular, should the phenomenon of
"non-thermal" effects be considered in Safety Code 6?
* * *
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html