Ma présentation écrite au panel de la Société royale du Canada


J'ai finalement réussi à prendre le temps de mettre par écrit quelques observations et recommandations (en anglais ci-dessous puisque tous les membres du panel chargé de réviser le Code de sécurité 6 sont anglophones) que je viens d'envoyer au responsable de la Société royale du Canada à Ottawa où se tiendront aujourd'hui les audiences pour les 35 présentations orales que feront divers experts et citoyens. Si vous voulez écouter en direct cet événement historique ('historique 'dans le sens où la dernière fois où un tel examen a eu lieu, c'était au siècle dernier – en 1999), aller au - les instructions en français pour se connecter sont au – J'ai mis à la fin de ce courriel toutes les explications en anglais sur cet événement.

Tel que vous pouvez le voir ICI, les 3 premières personnes à prendre la parole le feront en français à compter de 8:40. Il s'agit de Brigitte Blais de l'AQLPA, François Therrien du SEMO et Jean Gagnon (un citoyen de Montagny). Ils seront suivi de Frank Clegg de Canadians for Safe Technology et de plusieurs autres. À 13:30 Véronique Riopel prendra aussi la parole (en anglais semble-t-il) et elle sera suivie d'Andrew Michrowski. À ma connaissance, seules 2 personnes sur ces 35 intervenants défendront les thèses de l'industrie du sans fil, dont le fameux Lorne trottier. Chaque intervenant ne disposera que de 7 minutes et les panelistes disposeront ensuite de 3 minutes pour lui poser des questions.

Alors voici donc mon humble contribution à cet événement

Jean Hudon
Co-fondateur et webmestre
Coalition québécoise de lutte contre la pollution électromagnétique

* * * * * * *

A Matter of Conscience

Dear panel members

As the title of this written submission indicates, it is being suggested to you that the following is going to address the matter at hand—examining whether the Canadian ‘Safety Code 6’ (SC6) is still adequate or not— from a perspective not of a mere intellectual analysis, but above all from the standpoint of one’s conscience. Please bear with me as I’ll explain to you why this issue needs to be also scrutinized with a keen understanding and consideration of ethics and morality standards that are fairly universal today.

I’m quite sure that, at this point, you’ve seen and heard enough compelling scientific evidence to at least give some serious thoughts to the growing demands for a more precautionary approach concerning the SC6, with its sole consideration of thermal effects as a benchmark for evaluation of health impacts from microwave exposure. I’m also convinced that you’ve heard about the allegations of conflicts of interest that have been raised about some former members of your panel. I for one wish to reassure you that I fully trust your judgement when it comes to pondering the pros and cons and reaching a strong consensus among yourselves, provided that you also allow your conscience to come into play in your final decision. After all, we are all faced with the same concerns when it comes to our health and the well-being of our family members. None of us wish to take inconsiderate risks when options exist to limit them. And, in my humble opinion, plenty of prudent and wise options exist today to maintain our entire population’s exposure to a relatively safe level, at the best of our current knowledge.

But first, let me clarify for you what I believe should be considered as the main benchmark for the evaluation of SC6’s current, long-standing—and definitely obsolete—standards. History has repeatedly shown to us that waiting for an absolute proof of a causal link between a source of health-impairing influence (substance, radiation, etc.) in our environment and a given illness, or a series of ailments, almost invariably translates into mounting casualties and debilitating health conditions that end up costing far more to the society as a whole, and to millions of individuals, while an earlier decision to respond adequately to the growing consequences, despite the lack of scientific conclusiveness, would have been a much wiser and safer path to take. Think about tobacco, asbestos, DDT and a number of other similar products that were at some point considered safe to use, but which are nowadays much reviled and seen as costly past mistakes.

You certainly know that line of thinking and thus there is no need to further demonstrate that point. But let me however spell out what it should translate into regarding the ongoing and growing public exposure to the ever increasing number of sources of electromagnetic and microwave exposure. As the famous ‘canary in the mine’ analogy goes [a very relevant metaphor indeed because as for the natural gas build up in the coal mines, human cannot normally detect their exposure level to microwave radiations], there are numerous worrying warning signs indicating that, collectively, we are already well passed the safety threshold in terms of daily exposure to health-altering non-ionizing radiations.

Evidence of Harm

There are some prominent cases, like the landmark ruling by Italy’s Supreme Court last year which found a 'causal link' between a businessman mobile phone use and his brain tumor(1), which have made the headlines, but the vast majority of health consequences goes unreported. Based on what I’d call a growing body of circumstancial evidence, the case of the brain cancer causing effect of normal everyday cellphone use is strong enough to warrant a recognition of the non-thermal biological effects from microwave exposure. I’ve compiled for your review a small sampling of such evidentiary material in the reference section at the end of this written submission. Obviously, this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Similarly, the growing incidence of various health problems and numerous debilitating symptoms from exposure to industrial strength WiFi emitters in schools, cordless DECT phones, smart meters and cellphone antennas, to name just a few, is also happening ‘under the radar’ of most health authorities, but is nevertheless a growing concern, especially for the thousands of people already seriously affected.

The plight of electrosensitive people is particularly disturbing indeed, since this condition is poorly understood and almost no institutional support is available to help them stabilize their condition through avoidance of EMF, a condition which is only made worst by the fact it is becoming increasingly difficult to find areas and housing accommodations that are not blanketed with microwaves emissions from cellphone antennas, residential WiFis, electronic meters with hyperactive microwave emitters, and various other symptoms triggers. The near universal denial by health agencies across Canada about the existence of this growing epidemic of allergic reactions to microwave exposure is creating a unique class of people whose sufferings are either derided and blamed on their imagination (what some call the nocebo effect), or simply ignored, leaving them with no other option but to fend for themselves in a very hostile environment, much like what lepers had to endure in past centuries. For these people, whose symptoms range from insomnia and headaches to what can only be termed as permanent electromagnetic torture, more stringent SC6 standards would bring little relief, unfortunately, but EMF-free zones and public assistance, similar to what is provided to handicapped people, to cover the cost of shielding their living environment against electromagnetic pollution would go a long way toward making their life more bearable. However for the rest of the population with no such symptoms yet, SC6 standards that would be in line with the precautionary principle would provide a buffer against the expansion of this condition.

But what could prompt you to help, through your final recommendations, tilt the balance in favor of such a more prudent attitude towards microwave exposure? What would make you take a stand against the inertia and laissez-faire attitude in this country’s two main notoriously pro-business regulatory agencies, namely Industry Canada and Health Canada? What would make you stand above the political fray and firmly speak out the truth as you see it? Just one thing: your conscience.

But above and beyond that, what should help you do all of the above is your understanding that we are now at a critical crossroad as to the runaway explosion of microwave sources, some as close as one’s genitals like the smart phone in millions of men and women’s pockets, or the microwave emitting laptop computers and smart tablets scrambling their sperm and ovum’s DNA, some as ‘far’ away as the local array of powerful antennas emitting non stop, all too often at close range from or on top of apartment buildings, schools and even hospitals. It is unlikely that Health Canada will commission the Royal Society of Canada before at least another 10 years to do what you have been empowered to do. If you fail to boldly address this urgent matter now, by then the irreparable will have happened. Millions of Canadians will most likely permanently suffer from chronic electrosensitivity, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of deadly brain cancers will have taken away in their prime some of the most productive elements in our society—and beloved husbands, wifes, fathers, mothers and children. I don’t wish to add more on this. You get the picture.

So assuming that what you have just read as well as the cogent arguments from the numerous experts and other citizens who have just urged you to take heed of their grave concerns and ominous warnings about this developing crisis have all been enough to persuade you to err of the side of caution, here is a short list of recommendations I would like you to consider.

#1 Recommend to bring the maximum allowable Safety Code 6 limit for exposure to both cellphone and WiFi radiations down to 50 000 microwatts per square meter – instead of, respectively, 6 millions and 10 millions. You need to be bold indeed... And if you are concerned that political meddling and industry lobbying will prevent Health Canada and Industry Canada from implementing your recommendations, please leave this fight to others. Be assured that a mobilized citizenry will then take responsibility to bend the will of those opposed to the common good towards doing what is right, not what is convenient for those with vested interests to protect.

#2 Recommend to make mandatory the enforcement of this new standard with a 3-year gradual implementation period. And if you are concerned that the industry won’t be able to match the required new limit, just remember what happens when new safety standards and better gas mileage requirements for new cars are imposed upon the automobile industry: they find a way, and in the case of the cellphone companies, they certainly have the means to do so.

#3 Recommend that all new microwave emitting products must integrate what I call ‘safety by design’ measures to protect their users against excessive exposure. For instance, all new cellphones and smart phones should no longer be designed to be placed against one’s head to talk. The only means to talk and listen must be through a wired headset with a built-in microphone provided with the smart phone as a standard complement at no extra charge – and the wire must be properly shielded to prevent the electromagnetic signal to ‘run’ on it to the head. Obviously this would greatly reduce the incidence of future brain cancers. Even Apple will have to comply unless they’d want their future iPhones banned from Canada, and this will set the trend for all other countries. All smart tablets (like the iPad) and home routers must have a socket for a wired connection and both a 3 feet and a 25 feet wire must be provided with the product, free of extra charge, to ensure people will use it. No more WiFi-only routers or game boxes. Same thing for the new WiFi-enabled televisions. WiFi emitters must be banned from all schools and replaced with wired Internet connections as they now do in France. This way, over the course of a few years, most of the current ill-designed products will be phased out.

#4 Recommend that ongoing strong, well crafted and sufficiently budgeted public awareness campaigns be swiftly initiated to teach to the population how to safely use their wireless products. Mandatory warning labels must be affixed or engraved on all such products to make sure everyone is permanently reminded to be cautious with this technology and use it as sparingly as possible. Parents must be strongly urged to not let children under 14 regularly use a cellphone, except for texting.

With those 4 simple measures, you would render an invaluable service to all, and your conscience would definitely rest in peace.

Thank you.

Jean Hudon
L’Anse-Saint-Jean, Quebec
Co-founder and Webmaster
Coalition québécoise de lutte contre la pollution électromagnétique

1. Mobile phones CAN cause brain tumours, court rules in landmark case


CBC The National - Cell Phones and Insurance Companies
Wendy Mesley reports about how many insurance companies are not covering cell phone manufacturers and wireless carriers.

Corporations Admit Cellphones Damage Your Brain

'Casualty catastrophe' - Cell phones & child brains

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety
Children’s mobile phones are banned. The specific absorption rate (SAR) must be listed on every mobile phone at the point of sale and a warning provided to customers to choose a lower SAR phone, use it moderately, and wear an earpiece.

On the association between glioma, wireless phones, heredity and ionising radiation
This study conducted at the Örebro Hospita in Sweden has revealed that 10 years of cellphone use resulted in an average 290% increased risk of brain tumor development. Interestingly, the tumor development was found on the side of the head in which the cellphone was most used.

Cell phone use in pregnancy may cause behavioral disorders in offspring (March 15, 2012)
“This is the first experimental evidence that fetal exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones does in fact affect adult behavior.”

Based upon recent findings, the BC CDC recommends that males keep cell phones away from the groin area and limit mobile phone use. The report confirms that there is consistent evidence that exposure to testes is associated with reduced sperm count, motility, concentration and altered cell structure. In its report, "A Radiofrequency Toolkit for Environmental Health Practitioners", released March 7, 2013, the BC CDC states that "the epidemiological studies of men assessed for infertility were consistent in demonstrating decreased sperm motility associated with increased use of mobile phones" and "biological effects on sperm motility related to RF Exposure".

Children’s Health Expert Panel – Audio and Summary:“Cell Phones & WiFi – Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?” (29.08.2013)
The panel presented a wide range of scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation of the kind emitted by portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, Bluetooth earpieces, towers, antennas, smart boards, smart meters, Google glass, and other wireless devices, is adversely affecting people across the globe, and especially children. This radiation may be ‘non-thermal’, but has clear and indisputable biological and health effects. Based on the DNA effects alone, there should be no delay in acting to protect the human species. DNA is being damaged, and natural repair processes impaired, in this unnatural 24/7 bath of radiation. Children are especially vulnerable to DNA effects due to rapid growth and development of cells, as well as a longer lifetime of exposure.

Swedish Review Strengthens Grounds for Concluding that Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones is a Probable Human Carcinogen (01.04.2013)
With 5.9 billion reported users, mobile phones constitute a new, ubiquitous and rapidly growing exposure worldwide. (...) In 2011, the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) advised that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone and other wireless devices constitutes a “possible human carcinogen,” 2B. Recent analyses not considered in the IARC review that take into account these methodological shortcomings from a number of authors find that brain tumour risk is significantly elevated for those who have used mobile phones for at least a decade. Studies carried out in Sweden indicate that those who begin using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 have greater than a 4-fold increased risk of ipsilateral glioma. Given that treatment treatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on drug costs, resources to address this illness are already in short supply and not universally available in either developing or developed countries. Significant additional shortages in oncology services are expected at the current growth of cancer. No other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade. Empirical data have shown a difference in the dielectric properties of tissues as a function of age, mostly due to the higher water content in children’s tissues. High resolution computerized models based on human imaging data suggest that children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies. If the increased brain cancer risk found in young users in these recent studies does apply at the global level, the gap between supply and demand for oncology services will continue to widen. Many nations, phone manufacturers, and expert groups, advise prevention in light of these concerns by taking the simple precaution of “distance” to minimize exposures to the brain and body. We note than brain cancer is the proverbial “tip of the iceberg”; the rest of the body is also showing effects other than cancers.

This is an international case-control study which aims to assess the potential associations between use of communication devices and other environmental risk factors and brain tumors in young people. –– After leukaemia, brain tumours are the second most common cancer type in young people under 20 years of age. Little is known about what increases the risk of brain tumours. Risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation, family history of brain tumours, and some rare medical conditions. Exposure to chemicals and to electromagnetic fields may also be associated with the risk of brain tumours, although this is still uncertain. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the use of communication technologies, particularly among young people, and there is growing concern about their potential health effects. (...) What is being done -- Over a period of five years, nearly 2.000 young people aged 10 to 24 years with brain tumours and about 4.000 healthy persons will be invited to participate in the study. (...) MOBI-KIDS is now underway in 13 countries. Case and control ascertainment is expected to finish in late 2014. Results will be available in 2015/2016.

Important Russian Research on Cell Phone Radiation’s Effect on Cognitive and Other Functions in Children
This study has showed that EMF and cell phones cause significant long-term cognitive decline in children.

Greek Researchers Show Crucial Regions of the Brain Related to Learning, Memory, Alzheimer’s Impacted by Whole Body EMF Exposure in Animals

Increased protein synthesis by cells exposed to a 1,800-MHz radio-frequency mobile phone electromagnetic field, detected by proteome profiling.

Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects (26 JUNE 2013)

New Study on EMF Mechanisms of Action: “Plausible Mechanisms of Action for Low-Intensity EMR Exposure”
The mechanisms by which extremely low and microwave frequency EMFs produce non-thermal effects in humans and animals has been a great puzzle for scientists, because these fields are comprised of low-energy photons with energies thought too low to affect our physiology. A plausible mechanism is highlighted in this new study. This paper by Martin Pall disproves the popular claims that these biological effects cannot exist for lack of a plausible mechanism of action. A careful review of twenty-three studies shows that calcium channels may be the key mechanism for understanding the biological effects of EMFs. These studies shine light on our physiological responses to a variety of EMFs, including extremely low frequency EMFs (such as alternating currents in wiring), a variety of microwave and radiofrequency fields, nanosecond EMF pulses, and static electric and magnetic fields.
(...) Electrical and Chemical Sensitivity: This information lays the groundwork for future studies about electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), which may involve the mechanisms described above.

“The grounds for taking precautionary steps rest on a growing body of evidence.

Abdus-salam et al., 2008: “the need for caution is emphasized as it may take up to four decades for carcinogenesis to become fully apparent.” [38]

Myung et al., 2009: “The current study found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased case-control studies.” [39]

Levis et al., 2011: “Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.”

* * * *

Submissions re: Safety code 6

On Monday, October 28th, you have an opportunity to watch live while approximately 35 Canadian citizens and experts give presentations in Ottawa about the health implications of your now massive everyday exposures to the radiation emitted by wireless devices and networks. Most of these presenters ongoing make huge personal and professional sacrifices to help drive progress towards vital, more protective, federal health and safety regulations for individual and public health – they're doing this for every child and adult YOU care about.


Monday, October 28th
9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
convened by Royal Society of Canada

Go to the link below for Videoconference link. Please keep microphone features off or muted. If you have any problem connecting, look at the link beside Instructions because there you can see how to test your computer and you might have to install software (there are no fees, and the software is reputable from Adobe). To resolve any technical difficulties phone 1-888-799-8577 or 613-562-5282.

Below are details for the Safety Code 6 Public Consultation Session:
Monday, October 28
9:00 - 17:00
University of Ottawa, Desmarais Building, Room 12102
55 Laurier Avenue West
Videoconference link:
Schedule of Presenters
Instructions (English)
Instructions (français)

Ces instructions proviennent de où vous pourrez consulter de dernier envoi fort instructif de Martin Weatherall.

Vous pouvez aussi consulter ci-dessous une autre présentation écrite soumise au panel de la SRC...

“Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3kHz to 300 GHz” by Dr. Meg Sears, MEng, PhD Submitted to Safety Code 6 in Canada

Plein d'autres informations sur ce sujet au