Health Canada confused about WHO Classification

July 1, 2011.  Health Canada seems to be confused about the recent WHO/IARC classification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a “possible human carcinogen.”

Ms Beth Pieterson (Director General, Environment and Radiation Health Services Directorate, Health Canada) stated, “We don’t know the long-term effects of Wi-Fi … From all evidence we have today, there is no evidence based on international experts telling us that there is a cause for concern from exposure to Wi-Fi.”

But didn’t we just hear from the World Health Organization that radio frequency radiation is a “possible human carcinogen”?

“Health Canada says the classification doesn’t include wireless.” But the Chair of the Committee that reviewed the research disagrees with Ms Pieterson.

Dr. Johnathan Samet stated in an email to reporter Kristy Kirkup, “The classification covers radio frequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include wireless.”

This classificaiton includes not only mobile phones but Wi-Fi, wireless baby monitors, wireless smart meters, cell phone antennas, broadcast antennas, radar antennas, weather antennas, satellite communications, and other wireless devices that use radio frequency radiation to transmit information.

Saying that, “radio frequency radiation is possibly harmful but Wi-Fi is safe” is like saying, “lead in paint is harmful but lead in gasoline is safe,”  or that, “mercury in fish is harmful but mercury in dental amalgam is safe!”

Why is it that pharmaceuticals require extensive testing before drugs are released on the market but wireless technology is exempt from this type of testing?

Why is it that pharmacies keep a record to ensure that people don’t mix the “wrong medications,” but being exposed to multiple types of radio frequency radiation is OK?

Why is it that children are given “children’s aspirin” but are able to be exposed to “industrial strength Wi-Fi” in schools?

Why is it that school boards are ignoring the wishes of parents and are unwilling to provide a choice so that some kids can connect to the internet with wires rather than radio frequencies flowing through the air and through their bodies?

Health agencies do not require “conclusive evidence” to act in a “precautionary” way. Why is Health Canada protecting the wireless industry instead of the health of Canadians?

At the end of the article Ms Pieterson said, “Canada certainly supports WHO recommendations and the findings of IARC.”  Does that mean that Health Canada will now do something about radio frequency radiation in Canada or are we still waiting for “conclusive evidence?”

Read article:  Kristy Kirkup, July 1, 2011.
Wi-Fi dispute continues to raise concerns