2020-11-10 Health Canada puts lives at risk

1) Health Canada’s mandate seems to exclude alerting the public about health hazards, such as dangerously polluted drinking water or cell phones in violation of Safety Code 6 (SC 6). It fails to fulfill its mission statement and puts lives and health at risk. Not only does it not provide health information, it provides incorrect information on its website, e.g. it is safe for children to use cell phones 24/7.

Health Canada knew about contaminated water for 2 years before Mississippi Mills residents informed

“Michael Hebert, a lawyer for the residents, says it probably wasn’t Health Canada’s job to notify residents directly. But he said “clearly, their duty, in my view, would be to go to NRC and say: Look, there’s a problem here. You know more about it than we do. You’d better get to the landowners that are down-gradient (downstream) and do something.”

He also said Health Canada supports “unscientific, untested limits for what is supposed to be safe ingestion.”…

The NRC was the lead agency in dealing with the water issue, while Health Canada had only an advisory role through its Contaminated Sites offices. However, Health Canada’s mission statement also includes objectives to “provide health information to help Canadians make informed decisions.””


2) A suggestion for a Stop 5G event during the holiday season — a candlelight or lantern vigil on the day of the Winter Solstice. A day that was meaningful to our ancestors and a day for us to note our dependence on nature, and nature’s dependence on our doing the right thing.


(click on photos to enlarge)


3) Below in Letters is one from Brian Ahier, in the dept of Health Canada responsible for SC 6 and for “reviewing scientific studies” or so they claim. In his letter, he has made various claims and statements which we all know to be untrue. The recipient of this letter has responded very effectively but there is one statement that Ahier uses that is one that industry has been spouting for years and which we all must remember.

From Ahier:

“Health Canada scientists are familiar with the BioInitiative Report which was referred to in your correspondence. This report is considered to be an advocacy document that does not contain any new scientific data and regrettably presents an unbalanced review of the scientific literature as it excludes numerous studies that are not supportive of the Report’s conclusions. A detailed review of the document furthermore shows a number of weaknesses including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters.”

The BioInitiative Reports (2007 and 2012) are two very important studies which the industry has tried to demean for years. The important point is that the BioInitiative Report was written to rebut industry’s claim that there was no evidence that microwave radiation is harmful. A group of 29 well-respected researchers from 10 countries took months to review thousands of studies, eventually culling the number to about 2,000 of the best ones, the most credible ones, and summarized them in the 2007 Report which was considered groundbreaking.


Ahier, like industry, says that the Report is unbalanced because it only looked at studies showing harm and didn’t include studies that didn’t. He deliberately ignores the entire purpose of this Report. The conclusion reached refuted Health Canada’s, ICNIRP’s, FCC’s and industry’s claim that there is no evidence of harm. And furthermore, the BioInitiative Reports were peer reviewed and found to be extremely well done. The 2012 Report was an updated version and included studies that had been done since 2007.

Many countries have taken precautionary measures based upon the BioInitiative Reports recommendations, which were that exposure to more than a tiny fraction allowed by SC 6 caused deleterious biological effects. Ahier deserves to be taken to task for much of what he asserts, as the letter writer has done, but he also needs to be confronted about this misrepresentation of the BioInitiative Report. And while we are at it, he is guilty of having a whole lot of misleading and inaccurate information on Health Canada’s website, deliberately misleading people who come to Health Canada so they can protect their families.


Please read from the bottom up.

https://crpa-acrp-bulletin.ca/2019/06/07/2018-annual-federal-provincial-territorial-radiation-protection-committee-meeting-reunion-annuelle-2018-du-comite-de-radioprotection-federal-provincial-territorial/ & http://www.goc411.ca/en/75343/Brian-Ahier
To: Mr Brian Ahier Health Canada <brian.ahier@canada.ca>
cc: The Honourable Patricia Hajdu <patty.hajdu@parl.gc.ca>, The Honourable Navdeep Bains <navdeep.bains@parl.gc.ca>
ref: My letter to Health Canada Feb. 21, 2020 – Your response July 2020


Dear Mr. Ahier,

Your response to my February letter was unsatisfactory then, it seems criminally negligent now that I studied the subject more thoroughly.

You dismissed the Bio-Initiative Report by top scientists in this field. The appeal to the European Union by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warning about the danger of 5G didn’t seem to raise any red flags either. Earlier this year, when I sent my first letter, I had not seen any statements from the participants of the European 5G conference, but surely you must have, or you should not be a spokesperson for Health Canada.

Ms Hajdu, Mr Bains and all the policy-makers at Health Canada and at the Department of Innovation, Science and Industry: Are you aware of the statement issued at this conference?

“The European 5G Conference 2019 Effectively Admits 5G is a Massive Biological Experiment” which leads to the next question: Are you aware of the Nuremberg Code? It says: “It is unethical and illegal to perform experiments on humans without their informed consent.” According to this code, 5G should be illegal since people are NOT informed about this technology, and have definitely NOT consented to the level of radiation they will be exposed too.

Not only are you sticking your head in the sand about the worldwide scientific research on the cellular effects of EMF. Because of the inadequacies of Safety Code 6, policy makers at the Department of Innovation, Science and Industry even have the gall to include an overriding clause in their “contract” with the telecommunications industry: prohibiting local input where the towers and antennas can or cannot be deployed. As already experienced in BC, there seem to be no restrictions on deployment, be that near schools, hospitals or similar sensitive locations. And no one has a right to object? How can this be legal?

Since Mr. Ahier also made reference to ICNIRP’s pro-tech guidelines, I would like to draw your attention to a quote, made by Professor Paolo Vecchia, head of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) at the time, at a conference at the Royal Society in London. He said this in 2008 about using ICNIRP’s technical guidelines:

What they are not: * Mandatory prescriptions for safety*The “last word” on the issue *Defensive walls for industry or others”

I am absolutely horrified by Canada’s position. Thousands of scientific, peer-reviewed studies from around the world have already documented various negative effects on a cellular level from past and present generations of EMR. Even if many of these ill-effects are not yet scientifically proven, alarm bells should sound, consumers should be educated, and governments should distance themselves from the industry dictating the terms. Allowing wi-fi diapers and baby soothers in the market place is absolutely ludicrous. They are sold as safe: because of the guidelines in Safety Code 6. Starting at the age of 5 (now 4) children are exposed to EMR in schools many hours each day: because of Safety Code 6.

The above concerns apply to our present exposure within the 3G and 4G technology. Now consider the additional radiation with 5G exposure: Tens of thousands of satellites in space, tens of thousands small-cell antennas deployed everywhere, thousands more cell-towers not only emitting the already questionable waves. 5G will add an additional layer and incredibly more radiation, as it will introduce a new spectrum of mmwaves that have not been studied for its safety.. How can this very fact be totally ignored in Health Canada’s guidelines?

It will increase energy use at least 5-fold at a time, when we should be desperate to reduce emissions. 5G is an assault on all life on Earth, since everything and everyone will be exposed 24/7 – no escape. Where do people with sensitivities go? How will it affect the natural world from micro-flora to pollinators to migratory birds?

As it stands right now, no government, no institution is really safe from hackers. How can our safety and privacy be assured when everything is connected all the time?

While Canada seems to be oblivious to these developments around EMF and 5G, the European conference left its mark in many other parts of the world. Numerous cities, municipalities and counties from Finland to the USA have already opted out of 5G, and more are following suite almost weekly. Most of them are using the “PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” for their decision. Does Health Canada adhere to the “PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE”? If so, Safety Code 6 is inadequate, wireless technology has to be banned in schools and day-cares (It is already banned in France and other jurisdictions.) A Moratorium is needed on the general public deployment of 5G until proven safe for humans and the environment.

As regular citizens we have only a vague idea about the inner workings of government departments. But we must assume that the Minister gives the final nod to a policy when she/he puts a signature on the final document. So, I am asking you Ms. Hajdu and Mr Bains, please review Safety Code 6, please review these policies!

Precautionary measures have to be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not yet fully established. Canada must not always be last, when it comes to regulating harmful substances or technology.

We beg you to act on this immediately!

Irmgard Lipp (name given with permission



From: Ahier, Brian (HC/SC) <brian.ahier@canada.ca>
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:26 PM
Subject: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF)
To: Irmgard Lipp

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lipp,

Thank you for your correspondence of February 21, 2020 to the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Health, concerning possible health risks from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF). The Minister has asked me to provide a detailed response on her behalf.

Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada. The Department’s mandate regarding human exposure to RF EMF from wireless devices includes carrying out research into possible health effects, monitoring the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and developing recommended human exposure guidelines (Safety Code 6). Safety Code 6 sets recommended limits for safe human exposure to RF EMF in federally regulated industries and workplaces, and covers both the frequencies used by existing communications devices and those that may be used by devices employing 5G technology.

Regulation of wireless communication equipment (e.g., cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi routers), is the responsibility of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) under the Radiocommunication Act. To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, ISED has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6. Any queries regarding the deployment of 5G wireless technology should be directed to ISED.

Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 takes into account recent scientific data from studies carried out worldwide. When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, departmental scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks. The weight-of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies on a particular endpoint (whether adverse or no effect), and more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g., an inadequate exposure evaluation, a lack of appropriate control samples or an inadequate statistical analysis) receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g., with all controls included, appropriate statistics and a complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight. The limits in Safety Code 6 are among the most stringent science-based limits in the world and protect our most vulnerable. Safety Code 6 human exposure limits are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including infants and children, on a continuous basis (24 hours a day/seven days a week).

As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF EMF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. However, these studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area. It is important to note that a biological response, as reported in some studies, does not necessarily translate to an adverse health outcome in humans.

Health Canada scientists are familiar with the BioInitiative Report which was referred to in your correspondence. This report is considered to be an advocacy document that does not contain any new scientific data and regrettably presents an unbalanced review of the scientific literature as it excludes numerous studies that are not supportive of the Report’s conclusions. A detailed review of the document furthermore shows a number of weaknesses including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters.

The exposure limits and the conclusions of Health Canada are similar to those arrived at by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks and the World Health Organization (WHO). These limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Internationally, while a few jurisdictions have applied more restrictive limits for RF EMF exposures from cell towers, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive than Safety Code 6.

As mentioned in your letter, in 2011 an Expert Panel was convened by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to review the scientific evidence pertaining to the possible cancer causing ability of RF EMF. A Health Canada scientist was among the experts conducting the review. Upon considering the available evidence, the Panel classified RF EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Class 2B), based on limited evidence of an increased risk for glioma (a type of brain cancer) associated with long-term heavy cell phone use in some studies, for some statistical comparisons. However, the vast majority of studies have not found similar results. The IARC classification reflects the fact that this limited evidence exists.

Health Canada, as with other federal departments and several regulatory agencies worldwide, does apply the precautionary principle as a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, risks to health. A precautionary approach to decision-making emphasizes the need to take timely and appropriately preventative action, even in the absence of a full scientific demonstration of cause and effect. However, the precautionary principle is not a tool for risk assessment. Risk assessments consider all data available in the scientific literature and focus on effects which scientists consider most relevant for human health. Based on such an evaluation, the Department will take action as required. In the case of RF EMF, there is sufficient evidence, supported internationally, to show that adherence to the recommended levels of exposure in Safety Code 6 will not cause harm to health.

Please know that while Health Canada is aware of concerns related to Wi-Fi in schools, such decisions are not within Health Canada’s mandate; we recommend that you consult your local school board or provincial authority to discuss your concerns. More information is available on our website at:

Health Canada – Wi-Fi equipment


It is Health Canada’s position that the health of Canadians is protected from RF EMF when the human exposure limits recommended by Safety Code 6 are respected. Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects. Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure below levels found in Safety Code 6 was a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you for writing, and I hope my comments are helpful.

Brian Ahier
Acting Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada/
Directeur général intérimaire, Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada



Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“Great works are performed not by strength but by perseverance.” Samuel Johnson


Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation