Industry Canada Publishes Study on WiFi and Radio Frequency Exposure
6 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record 
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 228: Kumanan Wilson on Why Canadian Health Data Requires Stronger Privacy Protection in the Trump Era
Good day Michael,
Have you ever spent any time studying European Wi-Fi current issues, especially in Switzerland, and Germany?
What about European Parliament making direct move towards known as Salzburg convention
I wish you also spend some time to be informed with independent industry specialist like Magda Havas is Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies at Trent University PhD. Health Canada is lobbied by industry, and it has decades outdated norms which are not relevant to known researches. Whatever they recommend it just to please Wi-Fi makers.
http://www.magdahavas.com/
Study In Canada
A great move which will help students in gaining knowledge by accessing data through internet.
Magda Havas is an alarmist – period
Magda Havas has dedicated her efforts to warning the public about the supposed “health risks” of electromagnetic radiation for years. She appears to be a lone dissenting voice (some might call her a lone crank).Most articles I read on the subject essentially say – some experts say electromagnetic radiation is safe, but Magda Havas says that it is causing health problems. Meanwhile, she has published very little research, and no good research, to support her controversial claims.
Not a surprise that the amount measured is less than the allowable under Safety Code 6. Double the allowable then the measured amount would be twice as far below the standard.
The issue is Canada’s standards are far too lax, even countries like India have better standards with the allowable over 1000 times less than Canada and that standard is still 1000 times higher than it should be.
Why do Cell phone manuals tell you to hold the phone 3/4″ or more from the body if there is no reason for concern
Bob Smits is wrong. Dr. Havas has been one of most outspoken reearchers but is far from being alone. There are 1000s of studies by many, many independent scientists (not affiliated with the industry0 who warn that the biological effects from exposure to low levels of microwave radiation begin at mere fractions of what health canada’s ‘safety’ code 6 allows. Canada and the US allow the industry to set standards via ICNIRP which apply to thermal radiation. Many other countries have standards based on biological effects shown at non-thermal levels. As Dr. Leif Salford said this is the greatest biological experiment ever done in all of history of mankind. Our children deserve better.
Sharon, once again you are mistaken. US and Canadian limits are based on IEEE standards – not ICNIRP. Additionally, the Safety Code 6 limits account for ALL effects – not just thermal effects. And while several researchers have reported findings of positive associations between EMF emissions and health, many others have reported negative results. All of these studies have been closely examined by national and international expert panels, and their evaluations published in a number of review reports. The conclusion of the expert reviews is pretty much the same as what you will find on the WHO website:
‘To date, researchers have not found evidence that multiple exposures to RF fields below threshold levels cause any adverse health effects. No accumulation of damage occurs to tissues from repeated low level RF exposure. At present, there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set by international standards. However, more research is needed to fill certain gaps in knowledge’ (factsheet 226).
As for your admiration of Magda Havas; no rational person upon reviewing her academic credentials and body of work could possibly conclude that she is an expert on the potential adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields.