Letters:
Kendall’s form letter to many excellent letters:
From: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX [mailto:Perry.Kendall@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: March-26-15 3:54 PM
To: XX
Cc: Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX; Weaver.MLA, Andrew LASS:EX; XT:Germain,
Suzanne GCPE:IN; judy.darch.mla@leg.bc.ca; Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX
Subject: RE: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
Dear XX
Thank you for writing to express your concerns. I do not make decisions
about having Wi-Fi installed in medical care facilities”.
Nor, as
others have suggested do I make statements that such radiation is
“safe”.
Rather 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 readily 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
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.
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 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.
Sincerely
Perry Kendall
P. R. W. Kendall
OBC, MBBS, MSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
Physical Address: 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street
Mailing Address: PO Box 9648, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9P4
Phone: 250 952-1330 Fax: 250 952-1362
Email:perry.kendall@gov.bc.ca
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pho/
From: XX
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:50 PM
To: Kendall, Perry HLTH:EX
Cc: Minister, HLTH HLTH:EX; Weaver.MLA, Andrew LASS:EX; XT:Germain, Suzanne GCPE:IN; judy.darch.mla@leg.bc.ca
Subject: Wi-Fi in hospitals & long term care facilities
Dear Dr. Kendall,
I am writing to ask what evidence you are citing to inform provincial
Health Authorities that electro-magnetic radiation, as emitted by Wi-Fi,
is safe to be used in hospitals and long term care settings. From the
studies I have seen in the past two years evidence seems to be pointing
to the need to take precautions. Please see this report published in
February 2015 from the International Journal of Oncology calling for a
reclassification of RF radiation to a probable human carcinogen (2a).
Here is the abstract:
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/46/5/1865
This is indicative of all the most recent independent studies showing
adverse effects to living cells. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which
you refer to constantly, does not even take into account biological
issues. It was drafted years ago to set guidelines for thermal tissue
heating. It is also a guideline developed for federal sites only where
employees are not being radiated 24/7.
If indeed, there is no
cause for concern, why are insurance companies redrafting their policies
to eliminate coverage for claims against RF radiation?
It really
is time for you and your colleagues in public health to relook at this
issue like other international communities are doing.
Thanks for your time.
XX
First letter to Kendall by YY:
From: YY
Sent: March 26, 2015 11:22 AM
To: Perry Kendall
Cc: hlth.minister@gov.bc.ca; Terry.Lake.MLA@leg.bc.ca; judy.darch.mla@leg.bc.ca; dsnoble@shaw.ca
Subject: Concerns about Wifi in our Health Facilities
Dear Dr. Kendall:
I’m very concerned about the introduction of additional Wifi to our health facilities. Here’s my reasoning:
1. As a scientist I’m concerned about the lack of credible evidence
from independent sources as to the relationship between WiFi and health
in general and between Wifi and health improvement specifically. Most
people expect their health to improve as a result of a hospital stay. It
would be horrific and costly if Wifi actually turned out to interfere
with health recovery.
2. It appears that some public health
officials believe that there is no evidence that Wifi is a threat to the
health of the public. This may be true. But it is also true that there
have been no studies about the impact on Wifi on people who have a
variety of specific diseases, illnesses, or health issues that require
hospitalization. So while there may be minimal evidence as to the
negative impact on the health of the general public, it’s imperative
that evidence be conducted or retrieved about the impact of Wifi on the
health of those who require hospitalization.
3. As a person who
has been hospitalized, I would be devastated if my loved ones and
friends could not visit me in the hospital because of their own known
and demonstrated sensitivities to the negative impact of WiFi. The
evidence is quite clear that the support of family and friends
contributes significantly to health improvement. If these people could
not visit, it may mean longer (and consequently more costly) stays in
the hospital as it might take longer for patients to recover.
4.
The majority of people in society have little idea about what impact
Wifi may be having on their health or general well-being. They think
nothing of the hundreds of WiFi access points in public buildings and
spaces. Consequently, it is not unusual that many people would be
advocating for or wondering why there is no Wifi access in a hospital.
But their enquiries or complaints about lack of Wifi in health
facilities should not be taken as a signal that such electronic
transmissions should be started.
Our hospitals ought to be
beacons of the best health information and practice. Health facilities
should clearly err on the side of caution when adopting any procedure.
In addition, a hospital is an outstanding example, and should remain so,
of how people are examined as individuals, diagnosed as individuals,
prescribed as individuals, and treated as individuals. Adding Wifi for
all violates one of the most cherished perspectives of individualized
health care.
Sincerely,
YY
Response to Kendall’s form letter:
From: YY
Sent: March 26, 2015 1:28 PM
To: Perry Kendall
Cc: hlth.minister@gov.bc.ca; Terry Lake; judy.darch.mla@leg.bc.ca; dsnoble@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Concerns about Wifi in our Health Facilities
Hello Dr. Kendall:
Thanks for your prompt reply, and letting me know you are not involved
in making the decision as to whether or not installation of WiFi in our
medical care facilities is suitable.
One dilemma every scientist
has with a “balance” of studies is whether a conclusion based on balance
is a valid conclusion. Balance typically refers to studies that show a
variety or sometimes contradictory outcomes with a preponderance of
studies slanted in one direction. This does not negate the studies that
resulted in a different, less popular or less prevalent, direction.
I don’t believe it is proper to make health policy based on “balance”
of evidence as it does not take into account those findings that do not
fit the balance or cannot be explained by the other studies. This can be
a disaster for health policy.
You don’t make any mention of
studies that contradict or came to different conclusions than the ones
offered by the groups or panels you indicated. And how can we possibly
be certain about setting exposure standards when they come from panels
that could possibly have a conflict of interest.
And while the
Panel “reviewed the evidence for a wide variety of health impacts from
exposure to RF,” my concern wasn’t so much that RF “caused” or was
associated with those difficulties as much as what impact RF has on
those people who already have those difficulties.
Best wishes.
YY
