- Below is a stream of correspondence (mine to Dr. Kendall) and his form letter response.
- More re. the removal of all oversight for Hydro One in Ontario. Whenever any criticism is found, that agency is shut down. Now it’s the ombudsman’s office., along with others. If these programs are so good, working so well and so beneficial, why are BC and Ontario not allowing any oversight? Is this how democracy is working these days?
Ombudsman André Marin delivered this damning assessment Monday, in a report that detailed thousands of cases of egregious over-billing by the electricity company – including a senior citizen in Timmins who had $10,000 pulled from his bank account without warning, and a ski resort that unexpectedly received a bill for $37-million.
The investigation will likely be Mr. Marin’s last into Hydro One. Premier Kathleen Wynne is planning to take away the right of Hydro One customers to complain to the Ombudsman about problems.
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: May 25, 2015 10:36 AM
To: ‘Health, HLTH HLTH:EX’
Cc: Christy Clark (email@example.com); Health Critic Judy Darcy (firstname.lastname@example.org); Hon. Terry Lake (email@example.com); Terry Lake (firstname.lastname@example.org); John Horgan. Leader NDP; Abderrachid Zitouni, Radiation Specialist, BCCDC; CKNW Mike Smyth (email@example.com)
Subject: Health Canada’s Royal Society Panel incompetent and/or biased
You continue to reference panels that have been questioned as to their objectivity and competence, e.g. the Royal Society of Canada (the Panel), ICNIRP which is an industry based group long noted by experts in the biological effects of wireless radiation as having major conflicts of interest, and the IEEE which is comprised of electrical engineers who are not medical or biological researchers.** I would suggest it more appropriate for you to reference independent experts, for example some of the more than 200 who petitioned the United Nation. Why, sir, do you not defer to them? Is it because their concerns differ from yours?
With regard to the Royal Society, the process of the panel selection itself and the fact that Health Canada cherry picked studies to be included in the review have been severely criticized by the HESA Committee and by many of the independent experts interviewed. Therefore, you should be very careful when you decide to quote this as your source.
Attached is a critical review of the Royal Society Report by a true expert, Dr. Martin Pall,(CV can be found at http://www.ncnm.edu/images/CE/Pall_CV.pdf) but as a courtesy I will quote some of the charges he made. Dr. Kendall, I am not providing this information for you alone because, as you have demonstrated time and again, you are guided by opinion rather than fact. I am providing this information for the College of Physicians and Surgeons who might take an interest in the fact that the public health policy of British Columbia is being determined on very weak, erroneous and biased information. Note that Dr. Pall is providing his expert opinion but each statement is backed by scientific evidence, unlike ICNIRP, IEEE, Health Canada or you, Dr. Kendall.
- All of the evidence supporting the Report’s conclusion that only thermal effects need be considered are of the weakest type, confirming prediction but not ruling out alternatives. In contrast, there are thousands of studies apparently falsifying their position. (pg. 1)
- The Report claims that cataract formation is produced by thermal effects but ignores studies falsifying this claim and also studies showing [Ca2+]i and VGCC roles. (pg.1)
- In summary, four distinct types of evidence provide contradictory information about the basic assumption underlying current US, Canadian and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) safety standards that non-thermal effects do not exist: Microwave and other lower frequency EMFs act via VGCC activation rather than by heating; there are numerous papers in the scientific literature reporting biological effects with exposures well within safety standards where substantial heating cannot occur. Moreover, pulsed fields are, in most cases, more biologically active than non-pulsed fields that produce equal heating; windows of exposure intensities occur which are more active than both higher and lower exposures of the same fields. (pg. 4)
- Despite this claim to have reviewed a broad array of biological impacts, in fact the Report does not provide a comprehensive review. Rather it engages, as documented below, in what can be referred to as “cherry-picking” – selecting studies consistent with its assumptions. Moreover, it often ignores studies that are not consistent with its assumption that there are no biological effects excepting those that, in their view, may be tied to heating. Thus the Report completely excludes many different studies on prenatally exposed animals and those on spermatogenesis, on oxidative stress, changes of calcium fluxes and thousands of studies on therapeutic effects, all at nonthermal levels of exposure. (pp.6-7)
- Henry Lai and Devra Davis have documented that “conflicting” scientific evidence in the field of bioelectromagnetics relating to mobile phones has been carefully cultivated (45), an inference that may also explain the data of Huss et”al. (46). Huss et”al. stated “We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor sponsors’ products.” The panel ignores these findings and considers that conflicting evidence about effects of exposure to RF energy on cancer or other end points means that effects are possible but are not ‘established’ in accordance with its definition of ‘established health effects’. (pg.7)
- The Report states that the Panel’s conclusion on cancer is in agreement with a recent report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (47). In fact, the Report’s characterization of the IARC (47) position does not agree with the IARC actual position. (pg.7)
- Furthermore, the Report ignores the fact that WHO considers microwave radiation to be a Class 2B carcinogen, and the Report also ignores the fact that four prominent reviews on this topic (48–51) all come to the conclusion that microwave exposures can cause cancer. It is apparent therefore that the Panel of Experts on Safety Code 6 has allowed its assumptions to greatly influence its assessment here, rather than providing an objective assessment of the literature. (pg.7)
- Thus the Panel has failed to take into account important nuances regarding scientific research in this field. It has limited considerations to what the Panel calls “established health effects” defined in terms of consistent responses of various cell and tissue types (44). Where apparent conflict exists, the Panel uses its existence as proof that an effect is not established. (pp.7-8)
- We have here 13 (14 actually when the Franzellitti study is added) studies each of which provide clear evidence for genotoxic activity of non-thermal microwave fields and each of which therefore falsify the heating/thermal hypothesis underlying the Report and also falsify current safety standards. Therefore, based on widely accepted scientific standards, the heating/thermal hypothesis and the safety standards should be rejected.
What conclusion does the Panel draw? It concludes that “Extensive in vitro studies have generated inconsistent evidence that RF energy has genotoxic or epigenetic potential”. There is, however, no inconsistent evidence whatsoever. (pp. 8- 9)
- It is clear, in any case that the Expert Panel has completely avoided doing its scientific duty here, failing to assess each of the thousands of apparent falsifying studies, and opting instead, as seen above, to make specious arguments. That is tragic, in my view, failing to protect the health of many Canadians, and indeed others around the world. (pg. 9)
As you read these comments, consider that this critique applies to the review of the Royal Society’s Panel assigned by Health Canada to review Safety Code 6, the exposure guideline applicable to wireless radiation in Canada.
Such criticism has been lodged for years – accusing Health Canada of collusion and bias. In fact, in 2008 my husband and I submitted a petition to the Federal Auditor General charging Health Canada and its employees with bias and conflicts of interest. (see attached). Significantly, no one argued our points or disagreed with our conclusions. Rather I was told so long as the head of the division is aware of the bias/conflict of interest it’s acceptable.
The 10 points above are merely a sampling of Dr. Pall’s accusations of incompetence and bias. Critical is a final point:
“Of course, the weakness of the Panel’s case means that the current safety standards are based on quicksand.” (pg. 12)
Dr. Kendall, you have been provided with evidence that Safety Code 6 is inadequate, yet you continue to use it to justify your implication that wifi in schools and smart meters on homes are safe. You are guilty of negligence and I will be presenting evidence of such to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Your dependence on a foundation built of quicksand is creating a hazard for our children and grandchildren.
The Procrustean Approach, PhD Dissertation by Don Maisch http://www.emfacts.com/papers/
From: Health, HLTH HLTH:EX [mailto:HLTH.Health@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: May 21, 2015 10:40 AM
Cc: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX; Darcy.MLA, Judy LASS:EX; Horgan.MLA, John LASS:EX; firstname.lastname@example.org; ‘email@example.com‘; Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX
Subject: Ministry of Health Response 1034554
Dennis and Sharon Noble firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Dennis and Sharon Noble:
I seek to make my position on Wi-Fi clear.
I state, as do many other scientific bodies, including most recently, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel, (the Panel) that “the balance of evidence at this time does not indicate negative health effects from exposure to RF energy below the limits recommended in Safety Code 6”. This report is available on both the Royal Society and Health Canada websites.
The panel reviewed the evidence for a wide variety of negative health impacts from exposure to RF energy, including cancer, cognitive and neurologic effects, male and female reproductive effects, developmental effects, cardiac function and heart rate variability, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and adverse health effects in susceptible regions of the eye.
The overall conclusions are consistent with those arrived at by other review panels including the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the National Collaborating Centre for Environment and Health (NCCEH).
I am aware that on the basis of some studies that find an association between long term cellphone usage and ipsilateral intracranial tumours, the IARC has classified RF as a Class 2(b) possible human carcinogen. However, whether the association is causal and if so by what mechanism and whether this has any relevance to broader Wi-Fi exposures, as the Panel notes, is far from clear.
(note from Ted – What? Just because Dr. Kendall does not see or understand the exact mechanism that links cellphone usage with cancer then he dismisses the need to be precautious.
Where this is smoke then there is usually fire and in this case we do not understand in detail what the mechanism of this fire is.
Consider Marie Curie; she did not understand the radioactivity of radon and she died because of it. We did not understand the health effects of asbestos and many died because of asbestosis.
Is Dr Kendall saying that he will wait until some researchers finally discover the exact mechanism that shows that RF Radiation causes cancer in humans? )
The Panel did note that there are many additional studies ongoing and that it is possible that the findings of future studies may alter the balance of the evidence.
I note also that Health Canada, on the basis of recommendations made by the Panel, as a result of recent dosimetry studies, is revising some frequency range exposure recommendations to ensure larger safety margins for all Canadians including newborn infants and children.
The 150 studies that you refer to as being deliberately excluded from the panel review, will now be examined by Health Canada. I will review their assessments carefully to see if they change the present balance of evidence.
OBC, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Office of the Premier of British Columbia
Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Health
Judy Darcy, MLA, New Westminster and Opposition Health Critic
John Horgan, MLA Juan de Fuca and Leader NDP
Abderrachid Zitouni, Radiation Specialist, BC Centre for Disease Control
Mike Smyth, Columnist, The Province
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: May 15, 2015 11:25 PM
To: ‘Health, HLTH HLTH:EX’
‘Darcy.MLA, Judy LASS:EX’;
‘OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX’;
‘Horgan.MLA, John LASS:EX’; ‘Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX’
Subject: RE: Ministry of Health Response 1034111
I find your statement that you are open to new evidence quite bewildering. I and many others have sent you hundreds of studies over the last 3-4 years, and you have managed to ignore them all.
Your job as a public health doctor is to take action to protect the public before the “proof” is positive. Hundreds of scientists with experience and knowledge far beyond yours have raised concerns about exposure to wireless devices, yet you are steadfast in your opinion that there is no harm. This arrogance is endangering our children.
You say you base your assessment on reviews that have been commissioned by a number of governments over a few years. What reviews are these?
You reference the recent review of Safety Code 6 by the Royal Society. Did you not read the minutes of the HESA meeting? Did you not read the report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal? Yes, it is a report by a journalist summarizing that review which, in the opinion of many experts, was biased, done by people who either had major conflicts of interest or no competence in the field of biological effects of RF radiation. Did you not see that Health Canada unilaterally decided which studies would be included, and that 150 recent ones were deliberately excluded? Health Canada was instructed to explain, report by report, these exclusions. Dr. Kendall, how can you justify basing public policy on this sham of a review?
You also reference a review you commissioned by the BC Centre for Disease Control. Sir, you were given 150 studies by many of us who lined up outside your office after you consistently refused to accept and acknowledge new evidence. After several months of our pushing you to read the reports, you sent them to the BCCDC, telling us that you would accept their recommendations. The final report from the BCCDC confirmed that there was credible evidence that exposure to wireless radiation could reduce fertility. Yet when I asked you what precautionary measures you would take, you said you did not agree with my reading of the report.
You say that you base your assessment on reviews commissioned by a number of governments over a few years. All of the recent reviews I’ve read have expressed serious concerns about the proliferation of microwave radiation, even at levels hundreds of times lower than allowed by Safety Code 6. I ask you, Dr. Kendall, upon what reviews are you basing your opinion?
Are you aware that this week approximately 200 experts in electromagnetic fields from 39 countries sent a petition to the United Nations asking for precautionary measures to be implemented, especially with regards to children and pregnant women?
I question your authority to overrule, to ignore the warnings from scientists who have done more than 2000 peer reviewed studies on the subject. I ask you, Dr. Kendall, what more would it take for you to become concerned?
As for the Canadian Medical Association Journal article, it is a report, not an editorial.
It reports the facts that occurred at the HESA subcommittee hearing. Since you have always used Safety Code 6 as your justification for your stance, you should be very concerned that evidence is building that incompetence or, possibly, conflicts of interest have led to it being one of the worst guidelines in the world – not science, not honest disagreement among researchers – bias.
Dr. Kendall, you have a right to your opinion, but when you ignore the facts you are putting the health of the people of British Columbia at risk. Your opinion does not count. Facts do and I encourage you to review them with an open mind.