Dear James/Natacha:
Your
response is of no help whatsoever and merely reiterates the misleading
claims you’ve already made ad nauseam. I received exactly the same
message from Phil Bourke, on behalf of Tim Singer. Clearly, a great deal
of time and energy is wasted on sending meaningless standard emails
rather than being devoted to actually protecting our health.
I
have already addressed the issues regarding the science on EMR and will
not go into this again. The fact remains that, regardless of your
claims, I have been irreversibly harmed by this radiation and continue
to suffer damaging effects. Nothing you say about your assessment of the
scientific facts will change this – or the fact that microwave
sickness/electro-sensitivity has reached epidemic proportions in Canada
and worldwide. People are being harmed and it is inexcusable for you to
dispute the science so you can avoid taking action to protect us. No
investigation has been made into the countless claims of harm, nor has
any action been taken to alleviate the effects, yet you have an
obligation to do both.
The
WHO document I sent you, attached again for your info, explains why you
and other government agencies make the claims that you make about
microwave radiation not causing harm – and get away with it.
I
have never received a response to the many technical questions I asked
in my first document, Heads in the Sand Pies in the Sky (also attached
again), about Safety Code 6, and would like to know why this is so.
Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by ‘increasing awareness and responding to Canadians’ concerns’. I have seen no evidence of either claim, and responding to our concerns is not the same as acting on them.
I'm
connected to many large networks of people concerned about EMR, and not
one of them has, to my knowledge, received a satisfactory or meaningful
response from Health Canada – if they received a response at all. As
I’ve explained in my documents, it is very clear that you are dodging
the facts, disputing the science and denying the dangers, regardless of
the indisputable and widespread evidence of the harm being caused.
Enough.
We are all sick of you dodging your responsibilities and failing to do
your job. This is unacceptable and egregiously irresponsible for a
government health agency in a supposedly democratic country.
As
more cell towers are installed near my home, I am being forced to
retreat into the wilderness to protect my health and avoid the ongoing
and progressive harm being caused to me. It's time for you to be held
accountable. Once I have recovered some of my health, I will be taking
legal action and holding Health Canada entirely responsible for the harm
done to me.
I
await a direct response to my questions, as well as details of the
actions you are taking to protect my health and the health of the
countless others being affected by microwave radiation.
Sincerely,
Olga Sheean
From: Natacha Whissell [mailto:natacha.whissell@hc-sc.gc.ca] On Behalf Of CPSD-DSPC-ESD-DSE
Sent: March 14, 2017 6:46 AM
To: olga@olgasheean.com
Subject: In response to your correspondence of November 7, 2016 and February 9, 2017 concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy and your struggle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
Sent: March 14, 2017 6:46 AM
To: olga@olgasheean.com
Subject: In response to your correspondence of November 7, 2016 and February 9, 2017 concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy and your struggle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
Dear Ms. Sheean,
Thank you for your emails of November 7, 2016 and February 9, 2017, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy and your struggles with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). I have been asked to respond on the Minister's behalf. I apologize for the delay in responding.
As you are aware, the Government of Canada tabled its response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) report in Parliament on October 6, 2016. This response recognizes Government efforts directed at increasing awareness and responding to Canadians’ concerns about the potential effects from electromagnetic energy. This includes the funding of research proposals, monitoring the international scientific literature, and increasing awareness on exposure to electromagnetic radiofrequencies (EMF), while also promoting information sharing amongst all levels of government. A number of recommendations within HESA’s report were directed at organizations outside of the federal government. Health Canada has shared the report with these organizations for their consideration and action, as appropriate.
Please be assured that Health Canada leverages the best science available when assessing scientific research and formulating policy. The Department monitors the scientific research on the biological effects of RF energy on an ongoing basis, considering all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employing a weight-of-evidence approach. 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.
As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. These studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence. Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research in this area. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to RF energy below levels found in Safety Code 6 from wireless technologies is a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Health Canada scientists consider many different potential health effects, including thermal and non-thermal biological effects, when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. Harmful non-thermal/biological effects at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6 have not been scientifically established. Health Canada has incorporated large safety margins into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources. Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects.
As stated in the Government Response, Health Canada is a participant in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International EMF Project and a Health Canada scientist participated in the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group reviewing the scientific evidence pertaining to the possible cancer causing ability of RF energy. As you are aware, in 2011, the IARC classified RF energy as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on an increased risk for glioma associated with long-term heavy cell phone use. The IARC classification of RF energy reflects the fact that some limited evidence exists that RF energy might be a risk factor for cancer. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans. 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. The Government of Canada supports the collaborative work undertaken by the WHO.
Health Canada is aware of the work of the US National Toxicology program and has reviewed the study report which states that there was a statistically significant increase in certain types of cancer among males rats exposed to cell phone signals over two years. The RF exposure levels tested in the study were 19 to 75 times higher than the human exposure limits established internationally and within Canada for whole body exposure for humans. Our officials will continue to review published studies as they become available and consider this new evidence alongside existing scientific knowledge in this area when assessing possible health risks from exposure to RF fields.
Department scientists are also 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 shows a number of weaknesses including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters. The report recommends "precautionary" limits for human exposure to EMFs that are much lower than the internationally recognized exposure standards that are based on established effects, yet presents no clear rationale to support these exposure limits. Based on these and other shortcomings, Health Canada concludes that the report does not provide any grounds for revising our current views on EMF health risk assessment.
Health Canada acknowledges that some people have reported an array of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to EMF. At present, the symptoms attributed to EMF exposure have been termed idiopathic environmental intolerance by the WHO, where “idiopathic” refers to unknown causes. This means that while the symptoms attributed by some persons to EHS are real, the scientific evidence provides strong support that these health effects are not associated with EMF exposure. More information about EHS is available on our website at:
Health Canada – Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/electri-magnet/electromagnet-eng.php
The limits within Safety Code 6 are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including infants and children, on a continuous basis. Based on the latest scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low-level RF energy, including that from Wi-Fi technology, is not dangerous to the public. Health Canada stands by its position as outlined in the Government response to HESA. I hope that you will understand the Department's position on this matter and that my comments are helpful.
I appreciate having had this opportunity to respond to your enquiry and I hope that my comments are helpful in addressing your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
James Van Loon, Director General
Consumer Product Safety Directorate
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
Thank you for your emails of November 7, 2016 and February 9, 2017, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy and your struggles with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). I have been asked to respond on the Minister's behalf. I apologize for the delay in responding.
As you are aware, the Government of Canada tabled its response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) report in Parliament on October 6, 2016. This response recognizes Government efforts directed at increasing awareness and responding to Canadians’ concerns about the potential effects from electromagnetic energy. This includes the funding of research proposals, monitoring the international scientific literature, and increasing awareness on exposure to electromagnetic radiofrequencies (EMF), while also promoting information sharing amongst all levels of government. A number of recommendations within HESA’s report were directed at organizations outside of the federal government. Health Canada has shared the report with these organizations for their consideration and action, as appropriate.
Please be assured that Health Canada leverages the best science available when assessing scientific research and formulating policy. The Department monitors the scientific research on the biological effects of RF energy on an ongoing basis, considering all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employing a weight-of-evidence approach. 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.
As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. These studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence. Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research in this area. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to RF energy below levels found in Safety Code 6 from wireless technologies is a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Health Canada scientists consider many different potential health effects, including thermal and non-thermal biological effects, when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. Harmful non-thermal/biological effects at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6 have not been scientifically established. Health Canada has incorporated large safety margins into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources. Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects.
As stated in the Government Response, Health Canada is a participant in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International EMF Project and a Health Canada scientist participated in the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group reviewing the scientific evidence pertaining to the possible cancer causing ability of RF energy. As you are aware, in 2011, the IARC classified RF energy as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on an increased risk for glioma associated with long-term heavy cell phone use. The IARC classification of RF energy reflects the fact that some limited evidence exists that RF energy might be a risk factor for cancer. However, the vast majority of research to date does not support a link between RF energy exposure and cancers in humans. 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. The Government of Canada supports the collaborative work undertaken by the WHO.
Health Canada is aware of the work of the US National Toxicology program and has reviewed the study report which states that there was a statistically significant increase in certain types of cancer among males rats exposed to cell phone signals over two years. The RF exposure levels tested in the study were 19 to 75 times higher than the human exposure limits established internationally and within Canada for whole body exposure for humans. Our officials will continue to review published studies as they become available and consider this new evidence alongside existing scientific knowledge in this area when assessing possible health risks from exposure to RF fields.
Department scientists are also 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 shows a number of weaknesses including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters. The report recommends "precautionary" limits for human exposure to EMFs that are much lower than the internationally recognized exposure standards that are based on established effects, yet presents no clear rationale to support these exposure limits. Based on these and other shortcomings, Health Canada concludes that the report does not provide any grounds for revising our current views on EMF health risk assessment.
Health Canada acknowledges that some people have reported an array of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to EMF. At present, the symptoms attributed to EMF exposure have been termed idiopathic environmental intolerance by the WHO, where “idiopathic” refers to unknown causes. This means that while the symptoms attributed by some persons to EHS are real, the scientific evidence provides strong support that these health effects are not associated with EMF exposure. More information about EHS is available on our website at:
Health Canada – Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/electri-magnet/electromagnet-eng.php
The limits within Safety Code 6 are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including infants and children, on a continuous basis. Based on the latest scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low-level RF energy, including that from Wi-Fi technology, is not dangerous to the public. Health Canada stands by its position as outlined in the Government response to HESA. I hope that you will understand the Department's position on this matter and that my comments are helpful.
I appreciate having had this opportunity to respond to your enquiry and I hope that my comments are helpful in addressing your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
James Van Loon, Director General
Consumer Product Safety Directorate
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
This document has been sent to the WHO and the UN to provide details of these inexcusable failures and what urgently needs to be done to address them. It also outlines what World Health Organization must do to reverse this destructive course—for itself and for the global citizens it is supposed to protect. One of the most crucial and urgent steps to be taken is the replacement of the head of the EMF Project, Emilie van Deventer (an electrical engineer with zero health credentials) with an independent, unbiased, medically qualified professional who has firsthand experience and knowledge of microwave sickness/electro-sensitivity and the many other devastating consequences, such as brain cancer, neurological disorders, DNA damage and infertility.
No comments:
Post a Comment