Health Canada says wireless is safe, some disagree
When David Fancy needed accommodation for an environmental sensitivity, his employer took his plea for an office away from Wi-Fi signals seriously.
Unfortunately for some others, this is not always the case, said Fancy.
Fancy, a professor at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., said many people have sensitivities or allergies to Wi-Fi and other radio frequency signals. But since there are people who believe the condition does not exist — Fancy knows people with the same condition who have encountered doubt from their physicians — there are employers who will not accommodate in the workplace, he said.
Fancy was diagnosed as having electrical hypersensitivity by the environmental health clinic at the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto in 2005, he said.
“At that point it became clear that this is a condition that is not particularly well known, its deemed by some medical professionals as being an invention, a figment of the imagination of the people who are living it,” he said. “It just became really clear that a lot of advocacy work needed to be done to let physicians know about the research, the numbers of people living this, the fact that no one wants to make something like this up — I mean it’s a very real experience.”
Despite his battle with debilitating symptoms such as severe headaches, Fancy said he didn’t miss a day of work because of his suffering. He did, however, take the extreme measure of moving outdoors for three years to an unheated camper caravan in a friend’s woodlot.
He said he feels about 80 per cent better now and has returned to life indoors.
“At work I found an office that was not close to electromagnetic fields that might be given off by high tension wires or an internal transformer or something like that, and I just happened to find an office that’s not close to a wireless node,” he said, adding he did get a lot of help from HR on campus.
Health Canada had deemed certain exposure to Wi-Fi signals safe. It has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy in Safety Code 6.
“It is one of a series of codes that specify the requirements for the safe use of radiation-emitting devices operating in the frequency range from three kilohertz (kHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz),” according to the agency’s website. “Wi-Fi operates in the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequency range.”
One of the most vocal advocates and frequent researchers in the field is Magda Havas, a professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
Havas will be presenting on the dangers of Wi-Fi exposure at the Partners in Prevention safety conference, on May 1 in Mississauga, Ont.
Health Canada is wrong about safe exposure to radio frequency, like they’ve been wrong about other health issues and drug safety in the past, Havas said.
“Well Health Canada’s saying a lot of things are safe that aren’t,” she said. “You know, this is not the first time they’ve messed up. They’ve messed up with all sorts of drugs and other things — thalidomide is something that was originally approved and we found out it had devastating consequences so Health Canada does make mistakes… and on this one they’re making a mistake.”
The World Health Organization classified Wi-Fi radiation as a possible human carcinogen in May 2011, said Havas.
Health Canada says RF energy has been classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on its website.
“The IARC classification of RF energy reflects the fact that some limited evidence exists that RF energy might be a risk factor for cancer,” Health Canada’s website said. “However, the vast majority of scientific research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and human cancers. At present, the evidence of a possible link between RF energy exposure and cancer risk is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify this “possible” link. Health Canada is in agreement with both the World Health Organization and IARC that additional research in this area is warranted.”
As long as RF energy levels remain below Health Canada’s RF safety guidelines, current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from Wi-Fi devices are not harmful, the website goes on to say.
“RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the general public are required to meet Health Canada’s safety guidelines,” Health Canada’s website said. “The limits specified in the guidelines are far below the threshold for adverse health effects and are based on an ongoing review of thousands of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy. The public exposure limits apply to everyone, including children, and allow for continuous, 24-7 exposure.”
But Havas doesn’t agree and is concerned about the constant exposure and what it’s doing to people, especially children. Wi-Fi is being used in schools and at home because of convenience, she said.
The issue is when you have Wi-Fi turned on its emitting microwave radiation constantly and it has to be turned off to stop the radiation, said Havas.
“Most people don’t know that so the leave it on all the time… so anyone who is in that environment is going to be constantly bathed in microwave radiation,” she said. “It’s like having a microwave oven on and standing in front of it 24-7.”
She predicts the cancer rate is ultimately going to increase because of this constant exposure, pointing to a 1984 study done by the U.S. air force which showed a high level of cancers in rat populations exposed to radiofrequency waves at levels below Canada’s current guidelines.
It’s easy to stop constant exposure — just start wiring the internet — which many places in Europe have begun to do, Havas said.
“The benefits of wiring something rather than using wireless is: You’ve got more security, it’s usually faster and you can control it, you can prevent people from getting on if you don’t want them too, they’re harder to hack into as well, so there’s all sorts of reasons why wired makes much more sense than wireless,” she said.
Unfortunately for some others, this is not always the case, said Fancy.
Fancy, a professor at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., said many people have sensitivities or allergies to Wi-Fi and other radio frequency signals. But since there are people who believe the condition does not exist — Fancy knows people with the same condition who have encountered doubt from their physicians — there are employers who will not accommodate in the workplace, he said.
Fancy was diagnosed as having electrical hypersensitivity by the environmental health clinic at the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto in 2005, he said.
“At that point it became clear that this is a condition that is not particularly well known, its deemed by some medical professionals as being an invention, a figment of the imagination of the people who are living it,” he said. “It just became really clear that a lot of advocacy work needed to be done to let physicians know about the research, the numbers of people living this, the fact that no one wants to make something like this up — I mean it’s a very real experience.”
Despite his battle with debilitating symptoms such as severe headaches, Fancy said he didn’t miss a day of work because of his suffering. He did, however, take the extreme measure of moving outdoors for three years to an unheated camper caravan in a friend’s woodlot.
He said he feels about 80 per cent better now and has returned to life indoors.
“At work I found an office that was not close to electromagnetic fields that might be given off by high tension wires or an internal transformer or something like that, and I just happened to find an office that’s not close to a wireless node,” he said, adding he did get a lot of help from HR on campus.
Health Canada had deemed certain exposure to Wi-Fi signals safe. It has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy in Safety Code 6.
“It is one of a series of codes that specify the requirements for the safe use of radiation-emitting devices operating in the frequency range from three kilohertz (kHz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz),” according to the agency’s website. “Wi-Fi operates in the 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequency range.”
One of the most vocal advocates and frequent researchers in the field is Magda Havas, a professor at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont.
Havas will be presenting on the dangers of Wi-Fi exposure at the Partners in Prevention safety conference, on May 1 in Mississauga, Ont.
Health Canada is wrong about safe exposure to radio frequency, like they’ve been wrong about other health issues and drug safety in the past, Havas said.
“Well Health Canada’s saying a lot of things are safe that aren’t,” she said. “You know, this is not the first time they’ve messed up. They’ve messed up with all sorts of drugs and other things — thalidomide is something that was originally approved and we found out it had devastating consequences so Health Canada does make mistakes… and on this one they’re making a mistake.”
The World Health Organization classified Wi-Fi radiation as a possible human carcinogen in May 2011, said Havas.
Health Canada says RF energy has been classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on its website.
“The IARC classification of RF energy reflects the fact that some limited evidence exists that RF energy might be a risk factor for cancer,” Health Canada’s website said. “However, the vast majority of scientific research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and human cancers. At present, the evidence of a possible link between RF energy exposure and cancer risk is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify this “possible” link. Health Canada is in agreement with both the World Health Organization and IARC that additional research in this area is warranted.”
As long as RF energy levels remain below Health Canada’s RF safety guidelines, current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from Wi-Fi devices are not harmful, the website goes on to say.
“RF energy exposure from Wi-Fi equipment in all areas accessible to the general public are required to meet Health Canada’s safety guidelines,” Health Canada’s website said. “The limits specified in the guidelines are far below the threshold for adverse health effects and are based on an ongoing review of thousands of published scientific studies on the health impacts of RF energy. The public exposure limits apply to everyone, including children, and allow for continuous, 24-7 exposure.”
But Havas doesn’t agree and is concerned about the constant exposure and what it’s doing to people, especially children. Wi-Fi is being used in schools and at home because of convenience, she said.
The issue is when you have Wi-Fi turned on its emitting microwave radiation constantly and it has to be turned off to stop the radiation, said Havas.
“Most people don’t know that so the leave it on all the time… so anyone who is in that environment is going to be constantly bathed in microwave radiation,” she said. “It’s like having a microwave oven on and standing in front of it 24-7.”
She predicts the cancer rate is ultimately going to increase because of this constant exposure, pointing to a 1984 study done by the U.S. air force which showed a high level of cancers in rat populations exposed to radiofrequency waves at levels below Canada’s current guidelines.
It’s easy to stop constant exposure — just start wiring the internet — which many places in Europe have begun to do, Havas said.
“The benefits of wiring something rather than using wireless is: You’ve got more security, it’s usually faster and you can control it, you can prevent people from getting on if you don’t want them too, they’re harder to hack into as well, so there’s all sorts of reasons why wired makes much more sense than wireless,” she said.
